DVT offers a clarification of the reasonableness standard regarding the reportage of David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters:
SDP is advocating a civil reasonableness standard, i.e. would an ordinarily prudent person believe that Kranz could not be impartial given his past associations with Daschle, as opposed to a criminal-like standard of bias beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, obviously a civil standard is the way to go, and perhaps the best way to describe the standard is whether a reasonable person can be more than 50% certain that Kranz cannot be impartial in covering the Daschle v. Thune race given his close association with Democratic political figures past and present. A "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is relevant only to criminal law and hence is irrelevant to the weighing of Kranz's impartiality.
In the context of the reasonableness standard, DVT also cites a piece written by Noel Hamiel, publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic, headlined "Disclosure healthy, even for reporters, but college activities irrelevant." Hamiel basically sets a standard by which to weigh Kranz's impartiality, and states that Kranz's college activities are irrelevant to weighing Kranz's impartiality. Hamiel does essentially say, however, that the standard by which to weigh Kranz's impartiality should be applied to Kranz's post-college years. Hamiel says there should always be disclosure by the reporter of the nature of his relationships with specific political figures, and also discusses when a reporter should NOT cover someone. This is where the reasonableness standard comes into play. Could a reasonable person come to the conclusion that Kranz cannot be impartial given his close associations with Democratic political figures past and present? Stay tuned.
Recent Comments