[Deleted]

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[david m]

i admire her principles.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[underdog]

Surely the press can do it's job without publishing the name of U.S. covert agents. In this case it was the worse-kept secret in town, as her husband introduced Valerie on the political cocktail circuit as "My wife, Jane Bond"..

The whole Plame affair is unimportant and insignificant. It made news only because partisans thought the could nail a Bushie.

Of greater signficance is a CIA and other government agencies that leak things to the press because they don't agree with their agency's policies. These folks ought to be hung out to dry.

[Tazman]

I admire the lady for sticking to her guns, but as underdog said she needs to have her butt kicked for printing the name of a CIA operative.

[BenGarrett]

ORIGINAL: Ifferd

So do I. It is a virulent and dangerous idea that the press should be penalized ( and therefore effectively muzzled) for reporting the truth.


Very "Un American" and contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights.

Very true.

[etothepii]

So do I. It is a virulent and dangerous idea that the press should be penalized ( and therefore effectively muzzled) for reporting the truth.

I so strongly disagree with this. She was not penalized for telling the truth. That's just spin. She was penalized for withholding a source.

Now, should she have been compelled to disclose that source in the first place? That's a different argument.

Clearly, there are times when reporters must disclose sources. E.G., a terrorist has told a reporter that a dirty bomb has been placed in Columbus, Ohio. It explodes, and decimates the city. I feel that reporter should turn in the terrorist. I think you all would agree.

Again, does this particular case rise to the level that I illustrated above?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[BenGarrett]

ORIGINAL: etothepii

Again, does this particular case rise to the level that I illustrated above?

No.

There is no case where a journalist should be required to disclose his or her source. Never. If the scenario you described came about, I would hope that the reporter who was told this would pass along the information to the proper authorities, but they should never be REQUIRED to disclose their source.

This is a dangerous precident that has been set. Regardless of your opinions on the mainstream media, the press does keep our government honest (somewhat). Too often, sources will only speak on conditions of anonymity because they're afraid of losing their job or worse. And while the use of anonymous sources in news stories should be used very sparingly and only as a last resort, they do often reveal a story that needs reporting and ultimately will be reported and without their initial disclosure of what they know, the story never would've been told. If we make the court-ordered disclosure of sources a common practice, you'll see many who would've talked keep quiet for fear of retaliation, and it moves us one step closer to governmental control of the press. That's a very dangerous situation.