The view of journalism from this corner (newsroom of a mid-sized Canadian daily) is that ABC was right for a number of reasons — not the least of which is the one mentioned above, that it could cramp a reporter's ability to gather news later if he/she is seen as being biased.

There's an old saying in legal circles: Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. A very similar thing applies in jounalism: Reporting must not only be fair (unbiased), but must be seen to be fair. You can't really appear to be unbiased if you're covering an international story while covered in the symbols of one of the participants, even if those are the symbols of the target audience.

There is also the company's right to dictate what it will and will not allow on-air, in both dress and editorial content. I would suspect they also frown on a reporter wearing a Star of David, a crucifix, or any of a long list of symbols. So?!!

As for the NY Times having a blacklist of writers it won't run.... Your point is? Almost every paper has certain would-be contributors whose copy they won't run on anything except in letters to the editor. Freelancers just offer their work for sale, but no one has any obligation to buy it. So what the hell was the basis of the lawsuit in the first place? Harassment? I'd blacklist any idiot who filed such a frivilous suit, too. With judgment like that, I certainly wouldn't trust their copy.

Just MHO....

david