What if, instead of Fox, he sends to a blogger. Say Stephan Sharkansky, the Seattle blogger who has played such a large role in revealing the corruption in King County elections.
By definition, Sharkansky is not a "journalist". And his blog is not "a part of the media". If special privileges and immunity is going to be allowed the journalism profession, the first question that should be asked is: What is a journalist?
Unlike doctors and lawyers, there is no special training nor any licensing required to call one's self a "journalist". Nor should there be. So, how does one go about giving "journalists" immunity from prosecution?
Getting down to the nitty gritty.
Personally, I think bloggers ought to have some protection too. The only reason prosecutors need to go after reporters or bloggers is that they wern't getting the job done to begin with.
If government employees were able to pass along info with confidence, all sorts of things would come out, and Bill Clinton would probably be in prison.
New Yiork Times version:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/politics/19cnd-medi.html
"Nor did Judge Tatel offer any apologies today for the eight blank pages that were part of his concurrence in February, presumably setting out the factual reasons why the reporters' testimony was needed. Lawyers involved in the case have speculated that the pages described Mr. Novak's mysterious role in the matter."
MSM hubris. The judge owes the New York Times apologies. And the Times doesn't give the judge's explanation.
As I figure it, the judge is politely saying that even if the rules Stinker advocates existed, the reporters would still lose.
Judge Sentelle in particular expounds on the question of who is a journalist.