[OESY]

And who pray tell put Press Freedom on the Precipice? There was no harm before news media dissemination -- even outside Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington where Valerie's undercover role was well known. Let them at the Times eat yellowcake.

[Gibtx]

ole media death rattle

hope the die slow......alone and cold

[MNJohnnie]

prosecutor's investigation into an apparent attempt by the Bush administration to punish a political opponent by revealing classified information has veered terribly off course. It threatens grievous harm to freedom of the press and the vital protection it provides against government misconduct.

Translation: This was suppose to get Bush, WE aren't suppose to be involved in this!!!

Who protects us from Press misconduct?

Rather gate?

NY Time repeated leaking of classified Intelligence Information on Iraq?

Repeated reporting of phony Draft scare stories to prop up Kerry's fading campaign?

Active complicity in coordinating "news" coverage with current DNC political attack lines?

Raises the old question. Who's watching the watchers?

[El Gato]

The specter of reporters' being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment and the essential role of a free press in a democracy.

So much misunderstanding of our Constitution. First of all, we are not a democracy, but rather a republic, with democratically elected representatives. Second freedom of the press is just that, freedom to print (or publish) what one wishes. It does not grant any special privileges to some self appointed (anointed?) group who label themselves "the press". They have no more right to hide information of a crime than anyone else. They have no more "right to know" than anyone else. They have no more right to be anywhere or see anything than anyone else. Their only power, and it belongs to all of us as well, is to publish what they know, or think or think they know, without prior restraint from government.

Ask the NYT what they think of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and they'll tell you that despite those plain words, "right of the people", that the right belongs to the states and their organized, and federally controlled, militias. So much for their reading and comprehension skills.

[NewYorker]

Get Bush.

Oops.

Get Scooter.

Oops.

Get Novak.

Oops.

Get Miller????

What!!!

Hooray for Judge Hogan.

[wgeorge2001]

"classified information has veered terribly off course. It threatens grievous harm to freedom of the press and the vital protection it provides against government misconduct."

First, liberal journalists for the N.Y. Times are always playing victims of governmental abuse while they abuse truth and facts regularly and continue passing off propaganda ,lies and half lies as truth, especially when their sources are corrupt or may not exist at all.
Second, freedom of the press does not include the right to deceive people, it was given so they could provide facts only and not propaganda only, propaganda should be saved for the editorial pages of this and other liberal communist rags.
Third, she is probably guilty of breaking the law or preventing justice being done to liberal governmental officials who break the law and who would not be in government but for the votes of many foolish liberal people, who call evil good and good evil; the times is such a liberal rag and would hire Tokyo Rose as an "investigative journalist" and be proud of the deceit they so common print as truth. Fourth, I want my freedom of speech as a Christian to be able to preach the gospel of salvation to God by Jesus Christ without being persecuted by liberal people who believe what she believes as truth; their truth is damable, despicable and self serving and contradicts the truth of God. Let them eat yellow cake.

[Condor51]

The specter of reporters' being imprisoned merely for doing their jobs is something that should worry everyone who cherishes the First Amendment...in a democracy.

UH..... OK, which part of the 1st Amendment 'mr' NY Slimes? HUH?

1. The Freedom of Religion?
   
2. Or... prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
   
3. The freedom of Speech?
   
4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble?
   
5. The right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

   Or do you mean this little part..
   

6. The Freedom of the press?

I'll take a wild guess and that you're referring to the last or 1/6th of the complete amendment, which is a paltry .166667%.

Now, if you can get this worked up over one TINY LITTLE portion of the complete amendment, how about DEFENDING with the same zeal, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms which has a WHOLE amendment all to itself???? You know, the 2nd one.

Yes, NY Slimes... I'm waiting......
And how about this NY Slimes -- we pass 20,000+ restrictions on that little .16667% of the 1st Amendment. Would you like that? Huh? Some nice 'common sense' press controls?

I think we should. After all, it's for the children.

[M Kehoe]

even outside Joe Wilson's bragging circles in Washington where Valerie's undercover role was well known.

This fact is what makes this story (and the investigation) nothing more than mental masturbation.

5.56mm

[Laserman]

"an apparent attempt by the Bush administration to punish a political opponent"

Since when is it APPARENT that the Bush administration was responsible for this? What a buch of BS!

[Tacis]

The concept of "reporter privelege" exist only in the mind of the left wing media. It is one of this glib labels that the lefties create and use so effectively. It is an exclusion to the presses' other glib label, "the public's right to know."

"Reporter's privelege" has NOTHING to do with news, reporting or informing the public, it is simply a mechanism to protect a property tight. That property right is the source who provided valuable information once and may be persuaded/cooerced/bribed to do it again. If the source is identified, then anyone would have access to that potentially valuable source; the property right has been given away.

With a free press, readers would be able to evaluate the words by evaluating the source. In fact, this is one of the few instances where left-wing organizations do not place more weight on the affiliation of the speaker than on the speaker's words.

The media out, of course, would be to accept anaonymous submissions (as we do here) and, therefore, be able to say honestly, "We do npt know where this came from." But, that would force them to evealuate the words before using them and lazy leftists don't like that. It would also give up a property right that, today, can be manipulated. All media types worship the perpetrators of the greatest media hoax/dishonesty ever pulled off on America: deepthroat. A couple of anti-Nixon hacks faked a source for false information and got lucky (I still say Graham slipped a recorder behind a cushion in the Oval Office). All other press sleazes, some of whom actually believe there is a deepthroat, dream of a confidential source that be be as rich a meal ticket!

[Crawdad]

The NYT is pathetic, and their stock's performance reflects that fact.

[coloradan]

Boo frickin' hoo, NYT. Where were you when James Sanders was getting railroaded?