what is the law provision granting media the ability to gain access and air on tv interviews from fugitives?
151256
There is no such provision! If they met with a known fugitive and did not report it that would be obstruction of justice or possibly aiding and abetting a fugitive. They may have some protrection under the firsta amendemnt as to disclosing their sources but even those rights are not absolute.\n\nAs to airing an interview, that depends where and how they got it.
1139860
None unless you live in England.  Only the BBC is live
354968
media buying is the person who makes stategic agreements in multiple areas usually, like a print, radio, tv spot, direct mail campaign.  you buy the time, negotiate the deals and work the best angle for maximum exposure at minimum cost to your company.  It can be a high profile responsible job, you could go in a lot of directions with that experience, depends on what you want to do next.
898446
u should watch fugutive strike force on discovery channel\n..lol..yea they catch criminals
42491
The requirement for participation is that a television station in the country must have joined the EBU. So, it's down to them whether a country joins, rather than strict geography.
916227
I agree. Even if the country was willing to help ex-convicts, and wish to show it by allowing an ex-convict to run for parliament, that person would most probably be given least priority. They don't have to show it.
719352
Well, all it seems to take for President nowadays is the ability to make decisions -- doesn't really matter if they're good ones, and obviously knowledge of the law is not required.\n\nAs long as a person looks good on TV and can generate soundbites, that seems to fit the requirements.
152423
An interesting question.\n\nFirst: I might be completely wrong, and if I am I hope someone comes along and clears this up.\n\nBut: I don't think there is a law that specifically prohibits entrapment.  \n\nHowever: there is a successful defense to a crime if the government enticed the defendant into committing a crime the defendant would not have normally committed.  So, by virtue of the fact that you would be found not guilty if you can prove entrapment, there is, for all intents and purposes, a "law" that prohibits it.\n\nI can't tell you what that's based on, but I don't think the Constitution specifically addresses it.  I think it's probably more just a matter of fairness (courts are not going to let the government entice citizens into committing crimes).
769477
It would see that a roommate CAN give the police consent to search...\n\nhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050518.html
322621
Go to the tv station and apply for the job there.
308427
The website of the University of Missouri-Colombia has a lot of info about this topic, specifically this part by Vernon Stone (Professor Emeritus, Missouri School of Journalism):\n\nTelevision and Radio News Research\nhttp://web.missouri.edu/%7ejourvs/\n\nI guess of the links on that page, these two might be the most relevant:\n\n1. Career Entry /TV and Radio News Careers \nhttp://web.missouri.edu/%7ejourvs/careers8.html\n\n2. All About Newspeople / Television Newspeople\nhttp://web.missouri.edu/%7ejourvs/tvers.html
850031
I can give you a starting point and you can decide how much research you want to do. Minneapolis Minnesota installed the same system. It ran for about a year before someone appealed the ticket high enough that the cameras had to be turned off. So there is "case law" out there somewhere.
329732
Shea Stadium, if you're willing to get arrested or somehow earn a press pass
242473
Such laws differ from state to state and country to country. But usually you have to give an application in a court and publish the same in some leading news papers of the area where people know you. You also have to inform other authorities like the passport office, the immigration department etc. about the same.
1132006
United States Code (Federal Law)\n\nTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511\n\n§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited\n\n \n(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— \n\n     (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;  . . ."\n\n. . . \n\n"shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5). "\n\n. . .\n\n" (2) (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or  . ."\n\n\nhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html\n\nWhat this means is that a person can record a conversation to which he is a party, but cannot record the conversations of others. It is unnecessary to participate in the conversation, being present with their knowledge would constitute being a party to the conversation.\n\n----------------------------------\n\nCalifornia Penal Code:\n\n\n632.  (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. \n\n(c) "The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."\n\n\n (d)  "Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding."\n\n\nSource: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-637.9\n\n\nCalifornia bans the practice altogether.
1139787
I believe that it is unless you someone gives their full consent for an other to open their mail, but I don't have any sources for this. I'll try to find some and edit this later.\n\nHere is a summary of the act. Section one is relevant to your question.\n\nProhibition on interception\n\n1.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence and liable\n\n   1. on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;\n   2. on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both. \n\n(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if-\n\n   1. the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under section 2 below; or\n   2. that person has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom, or the person by whom, the communication is sent has consented to the interception. \n\n(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if-\n\n   1. the communication is intercepted for purposes connected with the provision df postal or public telecommunication services or with the enforcement of any enactment relating to the user of those services; or\n   2. the communication is being transmitted by wireles telegraphy and is intercepted, with the authority of the Secretary of State, \n\nfor purposes connected with the issue of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 or the prevention or detection of interference with wireless telegraphy.\n\n(4) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted-\n\n   1. in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the director of Public Prosecutions;\n   2. In Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. \n\nWarrants for interception\n\n2.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 3 below, the Secretary of State may issue a warrant requiring the person to whom it is addressed to intercept, in the course of their transmission jby post or by means of public telecommunication system, such communications as are described in the warrant; and such a warrant may also require the person to whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such persons and in such manner as are described in the warrant.\n\n(2) the Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this section unless he considers that the warrant is necessary in the interests of national security;\n\n(a) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or;\n\n... (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.\n\n(3) The matters to be taken into account in considering whether a warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (2) above shall include whether the information which it is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means.\n\n(4) A warrant shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above unless the information which it is considered necessary to acquire is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.\n\n(5) References in the following provisions of this Act to a warrant are references to a warrant under this section.\n\n...\n\nExclusion of evidence\n\n9.-(1) In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case) tends to suggest-\n\n(a) that offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below; or\n\n(b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those persons.\n\n(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are\n\n(a) any person holding office under the Crown;\n\n(b
201669
Depends if you want to cite it for a degree or school work?\n\nRecommend visiting the broadcasting channel website, they often have listings going back some time and further information on programmes.\nSuggest you quote the Programme, Channel, production company, date and time of broadcast and look for any copyright information.