Posted on 02/23/2005 4:21:38 AM PST by aculeus
"After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel."
In the recent annals of press freedom, there are few more regrettable sentences than those two from a December 31, 2003, editorial in the New York Times. The special counsel that the Times was cheering on, Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening a Times reporter with jail, and in a way that jeopardizes the entire press corps. This is what happens when liberals let their partisan disdain for a President obscure their interest in larger principles.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Maybe God is a conservative.
Yes! A compassionate conservative.
No, this is what happens when a party doesn't have any principles.
The answer is simple: Leftwing journalists will be shielded.
The NYT represents yellow journalism at its worst.
Re # 5...Fitzgerald, that is...
Chickens coming home to roost..Bump!
Petard.
One's own.
Hoist upon.
Priceless.
Needs to be repeated.
They have principles. Or rather they have one principle, which is to hurt President Bush. All else is subsumed under the one guiding light, to attack this one particular politician, in any way possible.
If what harms the President also harms the country or even themselves, it matters not. All that matters is that it harms the President.
What's good for them is bad for the country. That's all anyone needs to know.
The special counsel that the Times was cheering on, Patrick Fitzgerald, is now threatening a Times reporter with jail .
Half of the damned reporters in this country should already BE in jail for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
"both a British and a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee probe found that the White House had been accurate and that Mr. Wilson was the one who hadn't told the truth."
Now...let's have some of that good old fashioned "frog marching" that Joe Wilson demanded!
I think events have progressed beyond that. I think that any law enacted to protect journalists also will protect bloggers. As the article suggested, that coverage would be too broad to pass, and so either the law will be voted down or else the protections very limited (which in my opinion would not be a bad result).
There is transparency in every other sector of America. Why should the media be the only place in America where people are allowed to take highly inflammatory and career-ruining actions, and then say "trust us"? Certainly, they have not earned our trust in recent years.
Joe Wilson and Sandy Burglar are my first two nominations. Anyway, what astounded me was that ANY newspaper or news organization could be so ignorant as to think a special counsel to investigate a news leak was something good! Did they not see, even for a moment, that if they came for Robert Novak over a leak, that their own reporters could be next? A lot of us are posting these same points, but I absolutely think that if there were ever a time for heads to roll at major news organizations it would be now, and the heads that need to roll are those who were so mind numbingly stupid to demand a special counsel!
That's all they say about us: anything is good if it weakens the President. In fact, that's the whole thrust of the article.
Discussion at FR generally goes beyond the opponent for who he is, and into reasoned analysis. That's what keeps me coming back, and that concern for policy over personality is precisely what DU lacks on the other side.
I wonder if President Bush was indirectly criticising this investigation when he spoke in favor of a free press in Belgium last week.
Yes!! He showed his smug face on a C-Span panel about Patriotism, Democracy, and Common Sense: Restoring America's Promise at Home and Abroad. [February 19, 2005.].
I'm amazed that supposedly intelligent people still believe what he says.
I'm especially amazed that Wilson was even in a room where the word "patriotism" was mentioned. You'd think the word "patriotism" would be like wolfbane against him.
There was also a case in New Mexico, when the media was denied access to a state prison, in which the court held that the media has no more access than the general public. Which means the general public has no less access.
The answer is simple: Leftwing journalists will be shielded.The Reporters Committer for Freedom of the Press wants to protect not just reporters from established news organizations but everyone who writes anything, which means that almost anyone with a laptop and a Web site could claim to be protected from having to provide grand jury testimony. This Congress will never pass such an expansive shield, and we aren't sure it should.4 posted on 02/23/2005 7:33:17 AM EST by ClearCase_guy
As the article suggested, that coverage would be too broad to pass, and so either the law will be voted down or else the protections very limited (which in my opinion would not be a bad result). - PiranhaIMHO you are exactly correct. The Wall Street Journal takes too much of an establishment position here, for my taste. Codes of journalistic ethics aren't enforcable in court and have nothing to do with the law. That being the case, the law should have nothing to do with them, either. Whatever law makes sense to apply to "established news organizations" makes sense for bloggers; whatever law does NOT make sense to apply to bloggers does NOT make sense for "established news organizations."I'm delighted that recognition of the rights of
the bloggerswe-the-people are being promoted by The Reporters Committer for Freedom of the Press.Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.