[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No Republican serving in any official capicity can EVER shed light on the Wilson’s motives or affiliations. This would provoke cries of “retaliation” by the left and the media. The shackles on the administration are permanent. Only a respected member of the “mainstream media”can set the record straight. That person is the columnist who started at the center of the probe, Robert Novak.

. . . Novak, despite his conservative perspective is well respected journalist with a column in the mainstream press, a broad readership, and near celebrity status. Mathew Cooper and Judith Miller have incesantly told their stories in print and electronic media. Novak has an opportunity or even “duty” to give the world the picture it’s not getting, and cap off nearly 50 years of distinguished journalism. Please, Mr. Novak, go do it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are buying a con. The First Amendment doesn't say that members of the press are objective - it says that they can't be prosecuted even if the government can prove they are not objective.

The First Amendment also doesn't say that "journalists" are coextensive with "members of the press." Consider:

• book publishers are protected members of "the press" irrespective of the deadlines they work under - or don't work under, and

• broadcast journalists are subject to licensing requirements which are incompatible with First Amendment freedom.

The irony of journalism is that many people take journalism's reports as dispositive even though journalists claim to be objective. Objectivity is a virtue, and anyone who claims a virtue - and argues politics on the basis that they have that virtue - is arrogant.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

FCC licensees are subject to licensing. Not journalists who work for them.

[SaxxonWoods]

I read that Novak has testified to Fitzy and given him the source. I have not seen anything about a gag order on Novak. What gives, Mr. Novak? Got a book in process?

[samkatz]

Hi. I'm not saying that any law says reports/journalists, etc have to be fair and objective. Truth be told, if you go back a hundred years, newspapers were always highly ideological and sensational.

But I do think that we have a "right", legally and morally, to complain and air our disgust when print or electronic news people who pretend to be "reporters" are overtly biased.

Look, Rush Limbaugh and his protegees get on the air and say "I'm a right winger and this is my take on events". Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Will, Krauthammer are columnists who are giving opinions.

Way back when I took journalism classes, they taught that news writers/reporters were supposed to speak in an objective voice etc. Editorialism is a diff standard. So when the Times headlines "Sunni's Fail to Stop Constitution", or Assoc Press in a news release says "yielding to extreme right wing opposition, an embarrassed Pres Bush w/draws Miers"[not a direct quote]
do I have a right to be pissed, sure...