This author doesn't seem to have researched his piece very well. Take the shield law argument. He says: The problem for Gizmodo is that the shield law has a

This author doesn't seem to have researched his piece very well. Take the shield law argument. He says: The problem for Gizmodo is that the shield law has a specific exemption when the police are looking for evidence that the journalists (in this case, the Gizmodo editor) themselves committed crimes, as seems to be the case here. But almost every investigative reporter breaks a law when doing their job. Woodward and Bernstein received documents that were unquestionably stolen. That's receiving stolen property (not to mention violation of a bunch of laws regarding state secrets) The argument against Gizmodo is whether the story "served the public good" as established by the precedent. NOT if they committed a crime themselves.