Posted on 12/09/2005 4:52:40 AM PST by harpu
-BIG Snip-
If the Libby case goes to trial, Mr. Libby himself will be a sideshow compared to what his lawyers are likely to display to the public about the practice of journalism. It has been reported that his lawyers plan to make wide demands for reporters' notes. One can imagine them issuing subpoenas for the pen-and-pencil reporting notebooks of Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and others, having a hand-writing expert transcribe the notes, and then asking the reporters to read -- or try to read -- their notes on the stand against a transcript onscreen. That won't be pretty. Unless these reporters have the handwriting of nuns and recall of Garry Kasparov, they will look like fumbling fools. Any of us would.
The press requires the protections of the First Amendment because it could never survive legal challenge without it. But the reporting on the Plame case more resembles the Singapore press model, with its penchant for placing absurdist legal fastidiousness above knowing anything useful. In the Plame affair ideological animosity overwhelmed clear-sighted journalistic aggression.
Reporting the news is an informal, imperfect exercise. Journalism was never meant to have the unforgiving, precise exactitude of the law's needs imposed upon it. But because of Plame, it's about to be. Last month an appeals court in a civil suit ruled for nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee that reporters for the Washington Post, AP, New York Times, L.A. Times and CNN had to testify about confidential government sources who leaked information about Mr. Lee.
Someone in authority should have called off the Plame dogs. But it's too late for that. Now everyone's blood is in the water.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
When so-called "journalists" become partisans, they should lose any "shield". They still can practice - they still have their freedom of the press - but they should be required to meet the legal burdens us ordinary folk have when we want to accuse or promote.
Were I Mr. Libby's attorneys, I would be after all of the reporters'c notes, including interviews on t.v., all articles written, all of Robert Novak's memos, all of the internal memos of the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. I would bury them with demands until they cried for mercy, and then I would go after Joe and Valerie Wilson in a way that would make them vulnerable to perjury. I would have lots of fun at their expense! In other words, I would extract my pound or two of flesh from those vultures.
Calling reporters to the stand will be a beginning. But Libby's lawyers should focus on the two people most responsible for "leaking" Plame's name - Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
According to reports, Plame did everything short of leasing billboards with her name and her employer's name. What was there to leak?
Love to see Russert do the perp walk.
To say that I loath that p.o.s. would be too mild.
ping
"It has been reported that his lawyers plan to make wide demands for reporters' notes."
He-he. Not to mention the editorial board of the New York Times!
Baloney. I guess the Wall Street Journal has to take this approach because it is a media outlet, but there is no First Amendment protection for "the press" above and beyond that which is afforded to every American citizen.
Schumer and the Dems were pushing hard for a Federal Shield Law protecting reporters a few months ago. This is exactly why it must be squashed. They don't merit "special rights".
C-SPAN HAD A WONDERFUL SEGMENT ON THIS MORNING FEATURING ONLY SERVICEMEN BACK FROM IRAQ. THEY WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AND ONE HAD SOME REAL NEGATIVE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THE MEDIA AND RUSSERT IN PARTICULAR. IT WAS A GREAT SEGMENT.
My take on this is that the press got what it wanted. Now, it doesn't want what it got.
Let's hope it gets what it deserves.
But I'm not holding my breath.
There should be no "unidentified source". If someone wants to blow a whistle or make an accusation, they shouldn't have their name protected. If you aren't sure about a "Tip", don't make it. This "protect the whistle blower" concept is nonsense. If there is evidence of retaliation, that can be taken up under a later issue but the presumption that there will be some screams that there must be another side to consider. Sure, if someone gets a "secret tip", investigate it - look at both sides and decide which side you want to take but be prepared to identify where you got the information.
I could claim some unspecified source close to Howard Dean told me he was found to be sane but that doesn't mean it was true or that there was actually was a source.
I know this statement is a lie!
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.