Posted on 07/05/2005 7:33:02 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - It may be one of the most important First Amendment cases in a generation.
And it is one the media is on the verge of losing.
Two reporters, one each from The New York Times and Time magazine, are to appear in federal court Wednesday for a hearing on whether they should go to jail for refusing to talk to prosecutors investigating the potentially illegal disclosure of the identify of a CIA operative.
Federal District Judge Thomas F. Hogan in Washington has said he would sentence the reporters, Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, to jail Wednesday if they refuse to answer questions before a grand jury.
A generation ago, the Times and The Washington Post successfully defied the government in publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers, with considerable public support.
But this case comes amid growing public skepticism about the motives of the press and a string of high-profile media setbacks, notably CBS News' retraction of a story during the 2004 presidential campaign purporting to show that President Bush shirked his national guard duty.
"I don't think journalists as a group are particularly popular today, and the general public is not terribly inclined to be sympathetic to journalists in any situation in which they find themselves in trouble," said Richard Gordon, an associate professor and chairman of the new media program at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. "Now a picture of a journalist being handcuffed and taken off to jail - that might change that ... but it hasn't happened yet."
(Excerpt) Read more at sunherald.com ...
well, they lost in the recent appeal to the SCOTUS - there is no special right for reporters to avoid testimony. now they appear to want some kind of right to know Novak's grand jury testimony, so they can avoid perjury. see the thread running now with Jonathan Turley's article (in their favor mind you) on this point. its quite twisted, it should be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
I'll think we'll all be "surprised" when it comes out that Plame was not a "spy." Just another desk jockey. It was the Liberal MSM that said she was an undercover "spy."
They are just trying to get my hopes up... sigh.
Thanks for the info.
its getting absurd now - I expect Cooper to walk in there and tell the judge he won't talk, but offer his notes, with the word ROVE scrawled in crayon in a 3x5 flip pad.
Over the weekend wasn't it decided that Rove was the leaker? Thats whut I lerned watchin' tha tee vee, anyways.
The WH doesn't leak. The CIA and State leak and yes, the WH would like that to stop, as do the good people of those agencies.
But let the record show, the CIA initiated this investigation at the behest of a howling media and the DOJ turned it over to the Special Prosecutor. This was not started by the WH.
you're kidding... right??? where you been???
the RATS SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER for an investigation... and they got one... and now they don't like it!!!
HA ha...
The law is a law and it has been broken,now off to jail you go.
In case you missed it.......
'Wash Post' Wonders if Leaker of Plame's Identity Was a Reporter
NEW YORK The Washington Post, declaring Wednesday an "historic" day in the history of the press in America, suggested that perhaps the "leaker" of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIa operative was not a Bush administration official but a reporter (or reporters).
In a Wednesday A3 story, Carol Leonnig writes, "Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials -- not the other way around -- that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."
more ...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000973582
I said it didn't come out of the WH and so has Novak. As you yourself admit, he said "administration", which covers anyone in the various agencies.
I'm fairly confident one of Novak's two sources was at CIA and the second was either CIA or State. That's my educated guess.
I also highly doubt Plame had been covert in many many years.
As to your (accidental?) misrepresentation of Rove, you are wrong to say the WH ever said Rove did not speak to reporters on the subject. How absurd of you to claim that! They have always stated he did. He was not "the" source for Plame recommending Wilson for the trip. He commented on the story after that ball got rolling.
And Rove has signed a waiver of confidentiality so any reporters he spoke with are free as the wind to reveal what he said to them.
And of course the idea that Rove would have such knowledge is ridiculous.
For sure. Threaten to flush their AP Style Manuals down the toilet. They'll sing like bluebirds.
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.