Maybe if the media printed the truth and quit using all these anonymous sources, I might have more sympathy for them. When a source gives the word that confidentiality is lifted, then the reporter is free to testify and if they don't, they end up in jail. Somehow the Times missed that little gem.
Also the original intent wasn't for the media to report an anonymous source as fact when a lot of time it is spin or outright lies and then have them shielded by the 1st amendment. They bear some responsibility for ethics which is seriously lacking on today's media. They also bear responsibility for insuring they have more than one source that is credible -- something else lacking today.
And calling that joint she's in a jail is a joke.
wait till Hillary is POTUS and she starts throwing conservative writers in jail.You will change your tune.I want to know about corruption in Government,If I have to go through a few lies now and then,so be it.
It was the anonymous sources from the CIA and State Dept. bureaurocrats that screwed up most attempts to get the anti-terrorist campaign underway. They did all they could via secret leaks to the leftwing media. The CIA was a major source of such information from agents, analysts and even higher ups who wanted to protect their previously erroneous assessments about Iraq, save their bailiwick and undermine the prez. Elements in the State Dept. also did their worst to mess up the Iraq situation. Proof of this was spelled out clearly in Laurie Mylroie's book, "Bush vs. the Beltway" If you haven't read it, I recommend you do. Amazon may still have it.
I agree, had her colleagues not been chasing greed and political ideology and they printed the truth then the MSM would be deserving of protections.