Hope you enjoy your stay...
The article title is Court jails N.Y. Times reporter.
I read that and did a jig.
Here's the gist as I understand it...
Two reporters--one from the N.Y. Times, one from Time magazine--have been under pressure from the government to reveal a source who leaked the identity of a covert, I'll say that again, a covert CIA agent. Both have refused to name their source.
And now one, Judith Miller, is going to jail.
I say good.
This is the problem with fucking reporters. They feel like they can do whatever they want, then run and hide behind "freedom of the press" when they fuck up and print something that could endanger someone's life.
No. It doesn't work that way.
Freedom of the press doesn't give you the right to print whatever you want without responsibility, you jackoffs.
Did you think it was okay to print the name of a covet CIA agent and not expect any repercussions? Honestly? How fucking stupid are you?
Cooper, one of the reporters pressured to talk, said her jailing "is a sad day not only for journalists, but for our country."
Hey Coop, how did you manage that quote with your head up your ass? Talk to people outside of your field, numbnuts. Many, many people are supporting this. We are tired of this shit.
What if something happens to this lady because of your thoughtlessness? Oh, wait, it's not your responsibility. Freedom of the press and all.
Well fuck you.
Hey Ms. Miller, I hope you enjoy your prison stay. Don't think for one second you don't deserve it.
I read that and did a jig.
Here's the gist as I understand it...
Two reporters--one from the N.Y. Times, one from Time magazine--have been under pressure from the government to reveal a source who leaked the identity of a covert, I'll say that again, a covert CIA agent. Both have refused to name their source.
And now one, Judith Miller, is going to jail.
I say good.
This is the problem with fucking reporters. They feel like they can do whatever they want, then run and hide behind "freedom of the press" when they fuck up and print something that could endanger someone's life.
No. It doesn't work that way.
Freedom of the press doesn't give you the right to print whatever you want without responsibility, you jackoffs.
Did you think it was okay to print the name of a covet CIA agent and not expect any repercussions? Honestly? How fucking stupid are you?
Cooper, one of the reporters pressured to talk, said her jailing "is a sad day not only for journalists, but for our country."
Hey Coop, how did you manage that quote with your head up your ass? Talk to people outside of your field, numbnuts. Many, many people are supporting this. We are tired of this shit.
What if something happens to this lady because of your thoughtlessness? Oh, wait, it's not your responsibility. Freedom of the press and all.
Well fuck you.
Hey Ms. Miller, I hope you enjoy your prison stay. Don't think for one second you don't deserve it.
Expunged by Stewie at 7/07/2005 12:25:00 PM
18 Comments:
This is a tough debate for me. While I understand the problems with this particular instance, I don't think reporters should have to worry about what they will print as well as you don't want the sources to dry up for fear of being narced out by scared reporters.
Someone's life was now put in danger so that is a problem.. but the picture is worrisome.
Am I right in understanding someone from the Bush administration leaked the name?
I'm all for free press and protecting your sources, blah, blah, blah, but there has to be a line, and this crossed it.
I understand the way you feel, tho, Shiki, because I'm always concerned about starting a downside when it comes to allowing or outlawing certain things, but they're putting someone's life in danger. I want to kick that woman's ass, personally.
shiki - they crossed the line. I am the first to fight for freedom of the press, when it is reasonable.
Freedom of the press doesn't mean you can print whatever you want. It doesn't mean you can put lives in danger and not have to be responsible.
This case isn't going to change the people's right to a free press, but it will make reporters more leary of what they print, and I'm for that.
Freak, yes, it was the bush admin that leaked it. From what I've been reading, it may be the result of the operative's husband not giving bush the answer he wanted in regards to WMAs.
This case isn't going to change the people's right to a free press, but it will make reporters more leary of what they print, and I'm for that.
Think about it.
Sources will not want to give info that could potentially get them fired or in danger because they don't know for sure now if the reporters will give up their names or not.
What if Deep Throat would have been a little too scared to give the info he gave?
I understand that this is an extreme case and better judgement should have been used by the reporters. This sets a precedent though, and we can fully expect to see a drop in information because of this.
This just gives the administration and whomever else the power to get away with anything that they want to. Who is going to leak info now?
Let me throw it at you this way...
If nothing is done about this, what's to stop reporters from putting out the names of DEA agents, Narcs, FBI agents, spies?
I understand that.. just have to weigh which side is more important to you.
Anxiously awaits Hitman's comments.
For me, it's a no brainer.
This isn't even a black or white issue.
If sources become afraid to come forward due to this, you can't blame the government. You have to put the blame on the right people.
The reporters and the source.
The source broke some heavy duty laws on this, and the reporters are accessories. They should be punished as such.
Oops, I meant to delete that black or white issue line, because IMO, it IS black and white.
Perhaps they put her in jail, to protect her from the angry mobs of regular folk seeking retribution for the CIA operative.
...but perhaps not, considering Mr. Cooper was free to go.
I can't write about this without going into some length and detail, and I don't want to clutter up the comment thread.
I'll put it in my blog, instead.
Go read acerimrat.blogspot.com for my response.
Oh my.
There's a word for what you just did, but I can't think of it off the top of my head.
maxine - that would actually be great if more people were angry about this. :)
ace - i read it and i don't know where you stand. :(
freak - what can i say? :)
I felt like I was dancing when I read it.
Stewie...
One of my points is that your argument in your post is flawed...
I don't think she should go to jail because she didn't reveal the name of her source - she's not jeopardizing the CIA agent's life, and if I'm reading you right, you think she belongs in jail for jeopardizing the CIA agent's life, which by my way of reading this, she didn't do.
So I disagree with half of what you're saying - but I tend to agree with the idea that the White House leak, the one who ID'd the agent, belongs in jail for jeopardizing the agent's life.
But I read your post and response to my response at my blog, and I'm still not sure where you stand on my counter-argument that your logic is flawed.
I'm saying she should go to jail for not revealing her source.
The argument is not flawed, you are just reading way to much into it.
I'll break it down.
Mystery X tells reporter A and reporter B a CIA's operative name. (I'm leaving out Reporter C because he's not part of this discussion).
I'm fairly certain what Mystery X is doing is against the law.
Reporter A prints it. Reporter B sits on it.
The government comes in and says you have information that you shouldn't have. Who told you, that person must be punished? Reporter B refuses to tell under the guise of protecting her source.
Fuck her.
WTFever, Mr. Hitler.
When you begin to limit the freedom of the press, you begin to limit freedom.
I'm fairly certain what Mystery X is doing is against the law.
Nope, it's not. To put another spin on it, these people have dangerous jobs, and the risk of being identified is something they signed up for. If their cover is blown, that was a risk they took when they took the job. There are already lots of websites that ID DEA, ATF and FBI agents. This isn't something new.
If you call the police because your neighbor is beating his wife, the police come over to stop him and get killed, are you responsible for the death of the policeman? After all, you're the one who sent them there. If you'd minded your own business they'd still be alive. But you didn't, and now they're dead. Should you be arrested for that? Should you feel any responsibility for it?
These are not all related to the incident, but related to the general morality of the problem that was presented. Are there any easy answers to it? No.
Nope, it's not. To put another spin on it, these people have dangerous jobs, and the risk of being identified is something they signed up for. If their cover is blown, that was a risk they took when they took the job. There are already lots of websites that ID DEA, ATF and FBI agents. This isn't something new.
I don't dispute they have dangerous jobs, and I don't dispute they knew this going in. But we as a society have an obligation to protect these people while they are doing their jobs for the good of society. If that means shutting down newspapers and websites and prosecuting those who put out their names, then I'm all for it.
Believe me, I'm a supporter of freedom of speech. A huge supporter of it. But we cannot allow lives to be put in jeopardy and use freedom of speech as a shield. I disagree that limiting freedom of the press to protect lives is limiting freedom. And, if it is, then I have no problem doing so.
If you call the police because your neighbor is beating his wife, the police come over to stop him and get killed, are you responsible for the death of the policeman?
Absolutely not, and that is not a fair comparison. The cop knows the danger presented. If, however, the cop was undercover and I gave his name to a drugdealer and the cop was killed, then yes, I am responsible for his death.
Let me pose this to you. Say someone put a hit out on you or a loved one. Say a reporter knows who did, but for the sake of their source and the story, they won't say. Should they not be arrested and forced to give up their source? And, if not, why not? I mean, it's freedom of the press and they have a right to protect their source, no?
I know in this particular situation a hit was not put out, but it could potentially jeapordize a life, nonetheless.
The problem with limiting the rights to protect your source is not so much the individual case, to me, as the precedent - there will be more cases where lives are at stake, in the converse position - where the anonymous source's information saves lives, not jeopardizes them - and either people will fear to come forward because the reporter could be forced to tell who they are, or reporters will be reluctant to hear them out because of fear for their own well-being. (Think of the big tobacco whistleblowing case, that fellow was threatened with his life; Karen Silkwood may have been killed for speaking out. Now, if they had come forward anonymously, they might not have faced those threats/actions. Would you take that right away from them?)
It is, in many ways, the good of the many vs. the good of the few. By undoing this precedent or tradition, you risk far more than the life of one CIA agent.
Now, legally speaking, if the reporter is in violation of the law, it's within the rights of the prosecutor to go after her and the judge to jail her. And it's admirable that she believes in her principles enough to go to jail for it. I happen to disagree that it's necessary.
If, however, the cop was undercover and I gave his name to a drugdealer and the cop was killed, then yes, I am responsible for his death.
This is analogous to the person who revealed the agent's name, not the reporters involved.
That is why I remain unsure how to disagree with your stance - you are equating her inaction with jeopardizing the agent's life. In fact, if she is guilty of jeopardizing anyone's lives, it is the lives of future agents who her source might "out" in safety because she has not revealed him. But that is not the issue being discussed, in the mainstream media or here.
Post a Comment
<< Home