Isn't it pretty obvious why the reporters aren't talking? Because they know first had that the Bush Administration was built on intimidation and brutal revenge tactics, and the don't want to be on the business end of that sword.

Novak said last week that if he revealed his sources, "I would leave journalism."

Oh boy, something to look forward to....

Revealing your sources is not the same as revealing the identity of the person the sources told you was the leak.

Judge ought to question each journalist individually, without asking for their source, and question them. If all the answers come out the same, then we have a winner.

Robert Novak needs to put out and cough up the names. He opened his big mouth and spread the dirt, so he has to help clean it up.
And yes, a judge can question these folks 'in camera' in order to keep the sources from being made public. Of course, if the judge then writes a book later...!

This whole story makes my tummy hurt.
Leaks in the administration are a bad thing.

I'm a big fan of Deep Throats.

In other news, Satan gives his opinion on the recent 2 ft. snowfall in Hell

The media only shuts up when it's convenient for them to do so. Case in point, the recall election in california. That's all I'll say about that.

/not gonna go any futher to there

I'm sure there will be plenty of mental and verbal gymnastics performed by the media,who are probably just itching to spill their Democrat guts on this. In other news, Elia Kazan is spinning in his grave.

I'm writing a story for publication summer 2004 about a similar issue- publication bans and whether the public has a right to know what happens behind the closed doors of the courts (a Canadian issue, really). It ties into the bernardo trials, so if you're interested or involved, EMAIL ME.

Journalists should never ever reveal sources. Then again, journalists have a responsibility to only go "off the record" in extreme cases. I think this one qualifies.

Seriously, there needs to be some kind of fine line drawn. I'm all for protecting sources, but when it involves blowing a CIA ops cover, putting a life into danger and threatening our intelligence gathering, screw the source. Pride isn't more important than someone's life.

I'm sure there will be plenty of mental and verbal gymnastics performed by the media,who are probably just itching to spill their Democrat guts on this. In other news, Elia Kazan is spinning in his grave.

Whuh?

Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia Universitys Graduate School of Journalism, said he has never betrayed a source and that it is a question of personal honor for journalists.

Since when do journalists have honor?

New York Times:

CORRECTION
Monday, September 22, 2003; Page A02

A Sept. 21 item in the Metro in Brief column about a woman fatally shot in Prince George's County and a child who was wounded incorrectly reported the woman's age, the child's sex, the child's location at the time of the shooting, and the street on which the shooting occurred. A correct account of the incident appears in today's Metro in Brief column.

Robert Novak is such a douche.

sorry, washington post

So where are the FBI subpoenas for the reporters' notes and such like they are doing for the reporters in the hacker case?

Considdering how fond this administration has been of questioning the patriotism of the media, it's pretty ironic that at least two of its senior oficials are relying on the professionalism of reporters not to give away their treasonous backstabbing.

The reason why newspapers are no better than toilet paper:

Jayson Blair

Poster doesn't understand journalistic integrity.

Also, Robert Novak should quit journalism. He irresponsibly published info that destroyed a 20 year career, so the future of his own doesn't concern me much, and at the end of this he's going to be untouchable like radioactive waste anyway. So he should bite the bullet, name his source and have the good grace to die or just disappear.

I agree. Poor use of the asinine tag.

I'd like to suggest it should have been an IRONIC tag, just to start another flamewar on the correct usage of the word.

Well, at least Dave Barry is a hero: today he posted the American Teleservices Association phone number, website. Telemarketers farked without our help.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/6934584.htm

Seriously, there needs to be some kind of fine line drawn. I'm all for protecting sources, but when it involves blowing a CIA ops cover, putting a life into danger and threatening our intelligence gathering, screw the source. Pride isn't more important than someone's life.

I would love to know who did this as well, and to see that person severely punished. In addition, I am not a fan of this administration, and while I'm not glad that this happened, it's about time their arrogance and disregard for any opposition is put into check. However, Novak blowing his source's cover would not make Valerie Plume's and her contacts' lives any less in danger. The only thing it would do is jeopardize the cover of all future anonymous sources, which would be an absolutely traumatic thing to happen in journalism.

Hooray for Newsday. At least there's still some journalists with integrity, that don't knuckle under to the slightest pressure.

Hooray for Newsday, and hooray for freedom of the press!

It's called ethics, jackass. You don't reveal your sources. It's legally protected.

They don't have the ethics to not give away troop locations during combat maneuvers, but they have the "journalistic integrity" to protect their sources.

Sound like a bunch of asshats to me.

Dave Barry is an evil vermin scum, and -- even worse -- a member of the news media. Telemarketers are hardworking people, and if they're not allowed to call people who don't want to be called, jobs could be lost. The U.S. economy would suffer. The impact of the Do Not Call Registry would be like an asteroid hitting the earth. Yes. An asteroid!

In this case it's not called ethics. He's not protecting his source because his source might be in danger of anything, he's protecting himself, so the Bush admin keeps giving him juicy info.

xsarien: It's not an issue of pride. It's an issue of trust. If you reveal a source, how is any other anonymous source going to trust you? And if nobody trusts you, stories like these never get out in the first place.

2003-10-05 05:00:30 PM ReBurninator
They don't have the ethics to not give away troop locations during combat maneuvers, but they have the "journalistic integrity" to protect their sources.

Sound like a bunch of asshats to me.

You're talking about TV journalists there. They WOULD have knuckled under to the administration's strong-arm tactics, as fighting back might have messed up their hair. Apples and oranges.

HeartBurnKid

Thanks for clearing it up. I didn't know there was a difference.

If Novak doesn't reveal his sources, then the terrorists have won.

NAZIS!!!

/thread over

2003-10-05 05:00:45 PM RickTheVote

Telemarketers are hardworking people, and if they're not allowed to call people who don't want to be called, jobs could be lost. The U.S. economy would suffer.

I don't agree with this at all. The US economy is market driven. If people don't want to be called by telemarketers then there is no market for them and the industry should go away. Its sad that people lose their jobs, but in this case it is because there's no market for it. That happens every day. Retrain and do something else. People have to do it every day.

/threadjack

Charon, in this instance, I belive it IS an issue of pride. It was irresponsible to have knowingly outed a US spy. The American public, and the people of the world did not "need to know" this info. We would have been better off if this story had never been printed.

Josh,

It would only blow the future cover of Novak's sources, and he's said that if he named he'd leave journalism anyway, not that he'll name. Credibility is a personal commodity, Novak potentially acknoweging that his own is blown, and naming the leak, wouldn't have an effect on other reporters' credibility, nor do I think it would have a larger impact on the profession of journalism. That's just another bogus construct for Novak to defend instead of his own diminishing reputation. Now if you were talking about the six or so other reporter who got the same info, and didn't publish it, you might have a point because none of them ever acted complicitly in the violation of federal law, and therefore theoretically still have some personal credibility left to defend.

In his column today, Robert Novak's main defense seems to be that Valerie Plame's CIA position was well known and that when he called the CIA they didn't say anyone would be put in danger. On the News Hour, ex CIA agent Larry Johnson claimed he knew her personally and that she was indeed undercover. It seems to me the importance of this story will hinge on whether or not Valerie Plame was an outed covert agent or a known commodity. If she has truly been exposed as a covert agent, this will be a much bigger story than run of the mill political intimidation.

If the journalists talk, the bush admin will cut ties to their respective networks or papers. The threat of losing press passes and high-up contacts is enough to keep their mouthes shut. Same reason why there are some stories the american press just ignores altogether.

Call me crazy but didn't the CIA confirm all of this info back in July? So why the big deal now? And as far as I can tell, she was never a covert op person, just an analyst. So even if she was undercover and the analyst deal was her cover, wouldn't this mean that the CIA itself implicated her as a spy? Besides that, why would GWB put this guy in charge of the mission to find the proof they were looking for when they knew that this ambasador was a very big Democrat to begin with? This whole thing stinks on both sides!

2003-10-05 05:09:42 PM Boo Radley

You make a good point. If Novak had integrity he would have kept his mouth shut. But the "scoop" was the most important thing to him.

Newsflash

Gray Davis blows gots while humming "The Star Spangled Banner", an anonomous source reveals.

Prove it? Don't have to. I am protecting my source!!!


/sick of hearing that journalists have ethics...

We would have been better off if this story had never been printed.

Wow what a typical Republican response!!! So it's the media's fault this info got out? Or is it the fault of the insiders who leaked the info? I believe that journalists should be exempt from naming their sources, but more importantly administration officials need to stop breaking the law and keep their stinkin' yaps shut. But I guess they've been breaking the rules from Day One...well actually about two and a half months before Day One, but that's another thread for another time. /runs

of course, that should read "...blows GOATS..."

/still waiting for that FARK spellcheck

The greater good here is to make sure that confidential sources who have important information can come to us and be protected.

Gee, and here I thought the greater good would be protecting the lives of our undercover intelligence agents. Excuse me for a moment...

Ahhh.... Ahhhhhh.... Ahhhhhh..... ASSHAT!

Despite the fact that Novak shouldn't have revealed they name of the Agent, one of a journalism's highest laws is that certain sources cannot be revealed (There are certain exceptions, but only in extreme circumstances). To do so is not only unethical, but it can put those sources in danger and destroy your career. Not that journalists like to use anonymous sources, as it can be quite a hassle, but sometimes it is necessary.

Many journalists have evn gone so far as to spend time in jail because of this ethic. As an aspiring journalist myself, I can only hope I will keep such sources anonymous.

So maybe I just read that wrong, but I could swear they said they'd rather protect their sources than expose the truth. PRICKS!

Let's throw money at it and maybe it will go away!

So many journalists are scumbags. It amazes me what passes for "integrity" in that industry.

Okay: Wild speculation, fear mongering, rumor propagation, sensationalistic headlines, presenting unverified information as 'fact', complete lack of concern over causing irrepairable harm to the lives and careers of people, pandering, attack-dog style "journalism", etc.

Not okay: Revealing sources.

It makes sense though, because if journalists had to provide documentation for their stories (as is required in any other kind of research field), then they couldn't get away with the crap from the above list.

A whole lot of peeps just don't get it....

If journalists cave and provide their sources, they compromise the unspoken arangement between informants/whistle blowers and the press.

There would be a hell of a lot we would never find out about if that happened.

Good for the 5-6 journalists who turned the criminal down. The one who finally did report on this should get blacklisted for being a tool.

We would have been better off if this story had never been printed.

No. We'd have been better off if the administration hadn't lied in the first place and hadn't tried to punish others for revealing that lie.