LETTERS: Assessing Koppel's Column, Global Warming, and Staged Photos

By: E&P Staff Readers have their say on recent stories covered by E&P. If you want to weigh in, send an e-mail to letters@editorandpublisher.com.

A Swing and a Miss

Re: Ted Koppel Pens First Piece as 'NY Times' Columnist -- Comes Out Swinging

I'm sorry, but if E&P believes Ted Koppel's op-ed qualifies as "Coming Out Swinging," the industry may be in worse shape than I thought. I recommend a good dose or two of Drew Pearson, Jack Anderson, and Mike Royko.

Bill Bergman

***

General Hayden Got It Right

I just read your story entitled "Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on the Fourth Amendment." I also watched a portion of the press conference on which the article is based, including the question by the Knight-Ridder reporter -- Mr. Landay -- to which the General responded.

It's plain to me that the reporter, and not the General, has a shaky grip on the 4th Amendment. Yes, the 4th Amendment refers to warrants and "probable cause." But, the language does not by its terms require warrants or probable cause before a search or seizure. Instead, the language merely provides that, if someone chooses to obtain and rely upon a warrant, that warrant must be supported by probable cause. Thus, the Supreme Court has recognized that all sorts of seizures or searches can be "reasonable" without regard to whether there is a warrant. These include arrests of felons, searches of automobiles, arrests of individuals who commit a misdemeanor in the presence of an officer, searches of containers contained in cars, search incident to an arrest, etc. All of these searches or seizures are deemed "reasonable" if based on probable cause, without regard to whether there is a warrant.

What about probable cause itself? The Supreme Court has recognized as "reasonable" any number of searches or seizures that take place without probable cause, including sobriety checkpoints, inventory searches of cars lawfully seized, searches at the border, brief (75 minute) detentions and "pat downs" of people merely suspected of wrongdoing, etc. In each of these cases, the search or seizure in question is based upon "reasonable suspicion," something less than probable cause. In some cases (e.g., checkpoints) there need be no suspicion at all! Indeed, James Madison signed legislation that allowed for searches of vehicles, ships, persons, and pack animals in connection with enforcement of custom regulations; the searches were based on reasonable suspicion, and not probable cause.

In the end, then, the only plausible way to read the text of the amendment and the case law is as establishing and enforcing an overarching standard of "reasonableness." In some cases reasonableness requires probable cause, and a warrant. In some cases it just requires probable cause. In others it requires reasonable suspicion, and it others it does not even require that. Ultimately, reasonableness depends upon a balancing of the various interests involved, and not a reflexive application of a non-existent warrant requirement.

In short, the General got it exactly right -- when all is said and done, the ultimate question under the 4th Amendment is "reasonableness."

Alan Meese

***

Gloom and Doom

Re: Two Top Papers Ask: Is the Earth Heading for Doom?

Hoorah for Dr. Hansen and his standing up to George "Heckuva job" Bush, Dick "Heckuva job" Cheney and Dean "Heckuva job" Acosta.

Following is something I keep posting to try to help people understand the scope of the Doom we are facing:

Global warming, indeed, is very bad. However, another Great Ice Age would destroy the world as we know it.

Evidence is now becoming evident that what an international team of scientists discovered in Antarctica in the 1990s is occurring.

?

Anyway, whatever is about to happen will happen in our children's lifetime. And I really doubt that there is any way, at this late date, to reverse it.

Paul Sorrells
Austin, Texas

***

Staged Photos

Re: Photogs Slam White House Use of Staged Pictures

Enjoyed the piece. I can see the problem. Perhaps if news outlets quit running photos of Bush but ran photos of other portions of the events it might have some result. The problem is that with an administration devoted to secrecy, this might be exactly what the White House would want. However, if they ran photos of people commenting on Bush events, leaving Bush literally out of the picture, it just might work.

Richard L. Fricker
Tulsa, Okla.

***

Image Management A Cabinet-Level Position?

As far as I can tell, every Bush event is subject to some form of "stage management." Image management should be a cabinet department.

Jon Dale

***

Fighting Google

Re: European Papers to Challenge Google, Other Aggregators on Copyright Law

The World Association of Newspapers is not going far enough by challenging Google and other search engines that aggregate news content. They should also look into newsstands where people can easily skim headlines and browse stories "without paying for any of the content."

Sam Margolis
Chortler.com