Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: LindyBill	7/15/2005 7:35:23 PM
	of 793790

The NY Times Should Recuse Itself From Covering Plame NRO Media Blog Media Blog reader Bill Cox has a question: One thing I've been wondering about: Why isn't the Times held on contempt, just as Miller is? She's almost certainly a statutory employee, but even if she's an independent contractor her actions are clearly taken on behalf of her employer (and she wouldn't be so well-connected if it weren't for the increasingly-irrelevant Times). So wouldn't a fine for contempt of, say, $1 million per day, encourage the Times to release the info that they're obviously trying to conceal? I guess Fitzgerald would have explored that option, but I'm not sure why there aren't other ways to compel cooperation in this case. However, I'm also baffled about some other things: How can anyone consider the Times' coverage of this issue credible anymore? The Times is hiding information that the public increasingly needs to know. Who was Miller's source? With whom did she speak, and what did they talk about? Why is the Times covering up her role in this case, while hammering away at Rove? The Times should answer these questions — either by publishing a story or cooperating with Fitzgerald and thereby putting the answers on the record — or it should recuse itself from covering this case. I’m sorry, but I can’t read the Times’ coverage of this case without wanting to shout: “But you KNOW the identities of the other sources! How dare you pretend like this could all be cleared up if only Karl Rove would hold a press conference? You have vital information about this case, but you’re refusing to report it. Tell us what you know!” I’m not saying this for partisan reasons. In fact, I don’t care if Miller’s testimony implicates Bush himself in an impeachable crime — she should put her story on the record without further delay. It is a low moment for the press when the First Amendment has become an excuse for withholding vital information from the public. media.nationalreview.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next