Punishing the Press [NY TIMES - EDITORIAL]

NY Times ^ | Dec 20, 2004

[stinkerpot65]

When we get another Bill Clinton in office things will look different.

Then only reason judges are going after this is that they are hoping for a Bush/Plame scandal.

[SAJ]

Receiving stolen property is a felony in every state in the Union, unless I am very much mistaken. This isn't about ''sources'', it's about pure criminal conduct, with the sidebar of deliberate misapplication of the very text of the 1st Amendment in order to create yet another 'victim' class of criminal.

[Southack]

"When we get another Bill Clinton in office things will look different."

Rubbish. The news media still won't tell us who hired Craig Livingstone. Where were the Rose Law Firm billing records, and why did they turn up in the White House only *after* the special prosecutor's time had expired?

More recently, what is the *content* of the leaked Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee memos? Did Sandy Berger have a camera-phone when he was stealing classified documents just prior to our November election? Why did the press keep silent about Bernie Kerik's scandals until *after* he was nominated for a Bush cabinet position (what, that behavior only bothered them later), and who leaked it?!

So no, the partisan press deserves no special legal rights...and no, things won't be different with the Old Media.

[RegT]

Random Freepers (and yes, DU'ers too) posting messages have no less of a right to be called 'journalists' than the people graduating from Columbia J-school. NYT: the internet has destroyed the whole concept of 'journalism' as you knew it. Get with the program.

[Brilliant]

He did. He did not come right out and say who told him what and when, but he gave them enough info that they did not need more. They interviewed the guys he talked to, and those guys don't have any privilege to hide behind.

What they are trying to do now with these other guys is to poke holes in the story they've already got.