Maybe I'm off the mark, but after watching the most recent Bull (E04), did this person really get arrested because of a Podcast??? I realize this is just a TV program, but are they trying to get viewers by insulting their intelligence? I like Micheal Weatherly as an actor, but I hope the writers get their act together, otherwise I don't see this program lasting one season.
shareShe was arrested because Bull's team put in a subpoena for her raw interview footage to see what was left out of the podcast. She claimed journalistic rights for protecting her sources which didn't apply to her and most likely was charged with contempt of court.
The OP was discussing the rape victim. Essentially, the podcast and the podcaster got her arrested. <shrug>. Perhaps a bit unbelievable, but a jounalist's discovery *has* forced a police investigation in the past.
shareExactly. A subpoena is a legal document backed up by the laws of the court system. I agree that modern times probably has required expansion of the term "journalism" with blogs, podcasts, etc.
Is "contempt of court" the actual charge used historically with TV and print news? Sounds right.
Suppose I had a YouTube channel and I do interviews on the street or whatever. Then one of my subjects talks about his pot brownie business he runs from the street, so I pixelize his face among other edits before uploading to YouTube. Then it goes viral. It would be the same idea. Ultimately, I'd get charge with contempt if I refused to disclose my sources.
I was bummed when podcast girl got murdered, mainly because I really liked her on The Good Wife. She played a good example of someone trying to maximize her 15 minutes of fame. She could have been a good recurring character. It confirmed that everything you see or hear on social media isn't always true.
The last name of the female doing the podcast was also Huff. While watching I was wondering if she was a dig at the Huffington Post.
I think the writers did a great job of making the general public think about the news they hear and read. I think it was a larger commentary on journalism, broadcast news and media reports in general.
News used to be an unbiased reporting of the facts: THIS is what happened. These days, most news channels, and some reporters seem to always be putting a spin on the facts and a bias on the stories in order to make the public feel one way or another about whatever is taking place locally or in the world.
Honestly, I'm not sure how ANY juries are picked these days. In the world of instant information, I don't know how they ever find 12 people who haven't formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of any defendant.
That's what we need - ridiculous odds, and just a speck of hope that someday, we'll beat it