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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (165464)	7/7/2005 1:30:12 AM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Miller said that she isn't a martyr for the First Ammendment. She's doing this basically for her career. If sources won't talk to her, what can she do? A guy from the Chicago Tribune said that, not only should Miller not have immunity from revealing her source in this particular situation, she should never had agreed to total confidentiality in the first place. Miller's boss from the NYTimes hemmed and hawed and said the most absurd thing, even though this is not a case of a whistleblower, it may have bad effects on whistleblowers in the future. Whazza? The Chicago Trib guy made an interesting point. He said that the prosecutor was trying to reveal a crime and the reporter's were the only way for justice to get done. He thought that in 98% of cases, reporters can maintain confidentiality but in these kinds of cases, they have no more rights than the rest of us. I don't think the press is universally behind Miller and I also think many are not thinking clearly (big surprise!) about what they're blathering about.