"CBS fought very hard on this because it believed and believes that there's a principle at stake here. The principle is that Dan Rather doesn't work for the police, and that people that speak to Dan Rather understand that he's a journalist and not a police agent"
About this Quote
Abrams is doing what great First Amendment lawyers always do: turning a particular skirmish into a test case for a civilization. He’s defending Dan Rather, but he’s really defending the boundary line that keeps journalism from becoming an annex of law enforcement. The phrasing is strategic. “Fought very hard” signals institutional resolve, not celebrity special pleading. “Believed and believes” stitches past and present into a continuous ethic, implying that if you yield once, you’ve rewritten the job description forever.
The key move is the blunt demotion of the state: “Rather doesn’t work for the police.” Abrams isn’t debating whether police work is legitimate; he’s insisting it’s categorically different from reporting. That distinction matters because the relationship between a reporter and a source runs on a fragile social contract: confidentiality, role clarity, and an expectation that speaking to a journalist won’t boomerang into prosecution. His line about what “people… understand” is not sentimental; it’s an argument about reliance. If sources can’t trust the role, they go silent, and the public loses information that institutions often prefer to keep buried.
The subtext is about coercion and chill. Compel journalists to hand over notes, footage, or testimony and you don’t just solve one case; you deputize the press. Abrams frames the issue as “principle” because that’s how you make a newsroom’s refusal sound less like obstruction and more like civic infrastructure: an independent press can’t function if it’s treated as a convenient investigative tool.
The key move is the blunt demotion of the state: “Rather doesn’t work for the police.” Abrams isn’t debating whether police work is legitimate; he’s insisting it’s categorically different from reporting. That distinction matters because the relationship between a reporter and a source runs on a fragile social contract: confidentiality, role clarity, and an expectation that speaking to a journalist won’t boomerang into prosecution. His line about what “people… understand” is not sentimental; it’s an argument about reliance. If sources can’t trust the role, they go silent, and the public loses information that institutions often prefer to keep buried.
The subtext is about coercion and chill. Compel journalists to hand over notes, footage, or testimony and you don’t just solve one case; you deputize the press. Abrams frames the issue as “principle” because that’s how you make a newsroom’s refusal sound less like obstruction and more like civic infrastructure: an independent press can’t function if it’s treated as a convenient investigative tool.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|
More Quotes by Floyd
Add to List
