"Arkansas, Indiana, Virginia, or Nevada are supposedly telling people they can no longer smile on their driver's license photos"
In all honesty, have you been to any of those places? With the extremely unlikely but possible exception of Nevada, what the hell would any citizens of those states have to smile about anyway? I think it's actually a warning that anyone smiling is immediately considered suspicious...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: possession is not a crime but...
"If you're trying to deny that people are being held in Gitmo without charge than I think it is you who is making completely baseless statements. I'm not even going to bother to provide you with references to something which is so well known. What are you, some law enforcement propagandist troll?"
While I don't necessarily agree w/its functionality and operation, the entire reason for the existence of Gitmo is/was that it WASN'T on US territory, and there WEREN'T US citizens there. Once you bring a prisoner into the States, they acquire all kinds of rights that the govt. didn't want them to have. Comparing them to the folks in the article seems a bit over the top.
"1) Credit is given to the paper news reporter, thus providing credit for the person doing the real work."
Example - serial killer A is caught by policeman X, who was interviewed by reporter B for a story researched and framed by producer Y, who had possible stories pre-filtered by assitants Q, R, and S, most of whom worked for news company Z, but the selling point of the story was the photograph of the dead body taken by freelance photographer C. I would argue that EVERYONE of the lettered entities above are the originator's and/or inspiration behind the "story", none moreso perhaps than serial killer A. Who gets credited? Where does it stop? Just the name of the paper? Because why shouldn't it be the rest? And what about the freelance photographer whose image ACTUALLY made the story popular, why doesn't he get a share of the credit?
"2) Cover your behind from lawsuits due to shotty research. If you say "according to X", and X is a reputable source, then if X is actually wrong, you have no liability for what you had stated."
Great, except that this would give news groups full license to repeat absolutely retarded "journalism" from really, really bad sources without liability. Of particular note is many hate group publications and tabloids and the like have EXTREMELY innocuous names. Take the Nat'l Star -- As originally reported by The Nat'l Star (and photographer C, etc. etc.), Oprah ate Steadman and than shat him into a bowl of fruit loops and at it. Here's an artists rendition of what that would've looked like...
"Imagine how ignorant people would be if their only source of news was Techdirt."
Even pretending for a moment that there weren't good news blogs that offer independently gathered information, I'll still take ignorant over purposefully misinformed, or do you think you actually get honest factual news from any major media source today?