The plot just thickens and thickens! Smells like scadenfreude soup!
I found a very interesting article about journalistic privilege at http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/bowden-shields.asp.
...snip...
I think, in retrospect, I should have promptly answered all the prosecutors’ questions and showed them my notes. The newspaper would have been better off. The Inquirer appealed my case (Bowden v. Pa.) all the way to the state Supreme Court and lost. It now stands as a permanent setback for the Pennsylvania shield law, and a further erosion of the sweeping interpretation in Taylor. And for what? I had nothing to protect. Instead of contesting every subpoena that arrives, newspapers should do a better job of picking their fights. In the Plame case, it isn’t clear yet why the special grand jury wants to question Russert and Cooper. But unless they have made promises of confidentiality to someone, it is their duty to cooperate. In my case, simply agreeing to answer prosecutors’ questions would not have compromised any journalistic principles, it would have cost the newspaper next to nothing (I doubt I would have been summoned to the trial), and there would now be no Bowden v. Pa. to sway future rulings on the subject.
I would have lost my chance to play hero for a day, but I would have done my duty as a citizen, and that would have been that.
...snip...
A very refreshing article, from the Columbia Journalism Review.
The judge did order Cooper to jail on 8/6 but he posted bond. The judge has ordered TIME to pay $1000 per day that he refuses to appear.
Then there's this:
Sources close to the investigation said they believe Russert was not held in contempt Aug. 6 because he agreed to answer the questions after Hogan's July 20 ruling.