SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (245516)8/9/2005 3:41:46 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576435
 
re: I am beginning to believe she is not doing so not because she is so concerned with the reporter's 'right' not to disclose sources but rather because her ties to the WH run deep and this will be one more confirmation of those deep ties.

I'm beginning to suspect the same... still I believe that a reporter should be able to keep their source confidential. I think it's an important principle for the press to be a watchdog and help to keep the politicians honest. So as much as I don't like it, and as much as I think it's might nail the Bush admin... still have to stick to the principle.


I agree.

I just don't like seeing Miller getting all these accolades for going to jail when I think the real deal was the reporter who told his son right before court that daddy might be going away for a few months.

ted



To: Road Walker who wrote (245516)8/10/2005 1:54:05 AM
From: Elroy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576435
 
still I believe that a reporter should be able to keep their source confidential.

In every case? It's a bit of an all encompassing view, isn't it? Aren't there some theoretircal situations where you think the reporter should be forced to reveal a source?

This case seems like one to me. She never even wrote an article on the subject. She is more like a person with knowledge (that she refuses to disclose) in this case that happens to be a reporter.