Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (26263)	7/4/2005 2:01:54 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361939

Thank you, Lawrence O'Donnel, for your fantastic work on this issue--great points too about how Rove could be stepping up to the plate right now to end this story. Many have been concerned about Time Inc. revealing Matt Cooper's source, but they are losing sight of just how different this is from most cases. If, for example, a journalist is working on a story about how tobacco companies have kept important information from consumers and promises a source within the company anonymity, that source deserves complete protection. If the company sues for libel, the journalist should prove its case with documents and interviews without having to reveal the actual source. In this case, however, someone within an administration apparantly violated laws as retribution for something a critic said. Under no circumstances should that qualify for protection. Sources should be protected when they are looking out for the public interest--when a less-powerful person is speaking truth to power. In this case, a powerful person is trying to attack someone less powerful in a way that is apparantly illegal. Deep Throat was entitled to full legal protection. Karl Rove, or whichever Bush hatchet man did the job, should not be protected. Proof of just how different this case is from others: the fact that it is Judy Miller who refuses to divulge her source. Judy Miller has proven connections to the neocons and has been the source of so much faulty, pro-conservative reporting that led this country to war. Far from being a model of journalistic integrity, Judy Miller is what is wrong with the corporate conservative media. If it is true that Karl Rove is the source, her reluctance to reveal that makes perfect sense. Judy Miller doesn't give a shit about journalistic integrity or what is in the public interest--she will do anything she can to protect this administration. Although it should be for another reason--her criminally negligent reporting in the run up to war--she should be serving time. I can't think of anyone I would rather see behind bars than Ms. Judy Miller of the New York Times. Posted by: lone star liberal at July 3, 2005 10:50 AM