Siegfried Shrink wrote:Re-reading the 'Agreement' I don't think any reputable journalist would have a problem signing it
I do. As I said on the Chrisy Morris thread, journalists don't make a habit of ceding editorial control to the people they interview. Certainly not when it's being demanded in such a snotty, condescending fashion as this. Most journalists I know would tell them where to shove their agreement and which hand to use.
I get what you're saying, though: this is all meaningless and unenforceable. #1, "correct context", is too subjective for a court to rule on, and falls under "honest comment" besides. #2, "don't call us freedmen", may be something Jenkins wasn't planning to do anyway. #3 is pretty much a bland mission statement, demanding the movement be treated as "peaceful and legal", which it mostly is. Calling the movement violent when it isn't would probably fall under libel anyway, rendering this unnecessary. #4 is poorly worded, but journalists generally don't give their hard work to other entities for free, and these recordings would have little value beyond this program anyway.
I still think reporters should decline all such agreements in principle, but I'll get off my soapbox about that.