[dogbyte12]

I disagree here people. Fox news is our beacon of info. This hurts them. You do not reveal background sources, even if they are lying. You go to jail to protect your sources, you don't run bold headlines proclaiming the fact that you are outing a background source. They screwed up big time.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, your wrong. You go to the woodshed for reporting off the record comments. This tape, for what it's worth, was made on record, and all the media outlets currently are in possession of it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you believe Scott McClellan's White House press briefings should be kept out of public view, your wrong with your assessment of the Clarke tape. This was a press briefing much like White House press briefings held by Scott McClellan, or Senate press briefings held by any number of Reps or Dems.

[Peach]

I'm not a reporter or journalist and you could well be right.

BUT, my understanding of background material is just that - it's background. It's NOT protected or anything.

It's a background interview to give reporters a jump off point to start digging for answers.

[McGavin999]

You are not making a distinction between "off the record" and "background". Sorry, you are dead wrong. FOX got permission to release that interview. There is nothing ethically wrong it that and if the media does try to cover this up it's only going to hurt the media. (if it's possible to hurt the media with the American people, they already think "journalists" are lower than trial lawyers)

[gswilder]

If it damages Fox, so what? They'll still be # 1, and their audience will grow. This was backgrond. It shows Clark is lying then or now. The other media who were there had this too. If it had been something damaging to Bush, they would have release it for the "public interest".

[Just mythoughts]

"I disagree here people. Fox news is our beacon of info. This hurts them. You do not reveal background sources, even if they are lying. You go to jail to protect your sources, you don't run bold headlines proclaiming the fact that you are outing a background source. They screwed up big time."

Seems to me that we have witness Clarke make the claim that he was told to go and give background presenting only the "positive" about what was going on. He has accused the Bush administration of telling him to LIE.

Seems to me that if the Bush administration did not want to be sourced, that would have demanded, this would give credibility to the supposed "JOE WILSON" claim that the Bush administration was calling reporters outing his wife.

Rather having it known that this came from the Bush administration up front, sends a signal that we are playing hard ball.

[piasa]

You go to jail to protect your sources,

No 'source' is ever more important than your country. And a source can be a weasel or a saint. The latter are very, very rare and are saints only when they do it to protect the US and our human 'assets' while the former are all too often just slimeballs who are more interested in intrigue and money than they are of protecting THEIR sources, sources they haver access to in the course of their government jobs and are entrusted not to speak about or endanger, namely the very people out there fighting who depend on others not to leak to the press.

Sources are scum most of the time, and those undermining our efforts to go after terrorists - for whatever reasons- are the worst scum of all, just termites in the load-bearing walls.