Jailing Miller seems to have stopped at least two phoney stories from coming out.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
To: NathanBookman
We're Holding Big Stories Because of Miller Jailing Good. There are some "stories" that don't need to be published. The world will somehow manage to keep turning.
2 posted on
07/09/2005 7:52:23 AM PDT by
IronJack
To: NathanBookman
The funny thing is that any paper that sees itself in a competitive situation would not do any such thing. Clearly the Plain Dealer does not think that it competes against anything.
3 posted on
07/09/2005 7:55:01 AM PDT by
AmishDude
(Once you go black hat, you never go back.)
To: NathanBookman
Where is it written in the First Amendment that a "Free Press" gets to break the law.
4 posted on
07/09/2005 7:56:15 AM PDT by
Falcon4.0
To: NathanBookman
"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," That's it. We are all doomed it tell you; DOOM-ED!!!
5 posted on
07/09/2005 7:58:29 AM PDT by
LRS
To: NathanBookman
They admit that they were using "illegal sources"???? I guess that means that they are also admitting that Miller's and Cooper's sources were illegal? Rove could not be considered an illegal source, only the information could be considered illegal, although in this case, it has been pretty much determined that revealing that Wilson was recommended by his wife, a CIA employee, was not illegal.
6 posted on
07/09/2005 8:00:40 AM PDT by
Eva
To: NathanBookman
I thought the Miller investigation has turned into an attempt to detect who perjured themselves in the grand Jury.
IOW one of these journalists of "integrity" lied to the grand jury about who their source was, if they even had one.
To: NathanBookman
"...by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them."Perhaps that is the difference, would the leakers be facing "deep trouble" but still have whistleblower protection or would they be breaking the law in a serious way like outing a CIA agent?
8 posted on
07/09/2005 8:01:52 AM PDT by
NonValueAdded
("Iraq is the bug light for terrorists" (Mike McConnell 7/2/05))
To: NathanBookman
CHICAGO Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton says the Cleveland daily is not reporting two major investigative stories trumped up hit pieces of "profound little or no importance" because they are based on illegally leaked forged documents -- and the paper fears the consequences. (consequences = falling paper sales)
9 posted on
07/09/2005 8:04:29 AM PDT by
Mad Dawgg
("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
To: NathanBookman
I thought "Clifton" was a big red dog. Waitaminute, Cleveland Plain Dealer? Could be...
11 posted on
07/09/2005 8:04:37 AM PDT by
gov_bean_ counter
(Conservatives look at Iraqi dual use chemicals and see WMDs. Liberals see tomato gardens.)
To: NathanBookman
12 posted on
07/09/2005 8:04:42 AM PDT by
evad
(No action to secure borders, No action on judges... NO MONEY!)
To: NathanBookman
As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands In other words, more anti-American and anti-Bush stories that are fake and cannot possibly be proven.
14 posted on
07/09/2005 8:08:25 AM PDT by
softwarecreator
(Facts are to liberals as holy water is to vampires)
To: NathanBookman
CHICAGO Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton says the Cleveland daily is not reporting two major investigative stories of "profound importance" because they are based on illegally leaked documents -- and the paper fears the consequences faced now by jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller. This logic astounds me. Miller never published either and she is in jail. How does he think not publishing a story protects the paper?
15 posted on
07/09/2005 8:09:38 AM PDT by
TheOtherOne
(The scales of Justice are unbalanced.™)
To: NathanBookman
I always thought that anything obtained illegally could not be used as evidence. I wonder how long it will be before media outlets start complaining about activist courts that allow such things to happen.
16 posted on
07/09/2005 8:10:40 AM PDT by
Bernard
(Parliamentary Procedure - rules on how to deal with your enemy.)
To: NathanBookman
So, these left-wing scum are saying that protecting the identity of the guy who stole these documents and gave them to the paper is more important than the public's right to learn about the issues involved? How about if he was a conservative white Christian?
18 posted on
07/09/2005 8:26:51 AM PDT by
Tacis
("Democrats - The Party of Traitors, Treachery and Treason!")
To: NathanBookman
Take this guy down from his cross.
To: NathanBookman
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The decision of the court to send these journalists to jail for not revealing their sources will absolutely have a chilling effect on the press.
You may like this when the stories run against those you disagree with or when they run against a cause you don't support. But you will also have to like it when the tyranny of government runs over something you hold dear and the press is not there to shed light on the topic.
When mere words get people thrown in jail, especially words reported by the press, your country is going down the wrong path.
All the government has to do is to declare information sharing illegal and your last peaceful defense against government out of control is gone.
The Bill of Rights was put in place for many reasons, one of them was to give the written word the ability to shed light on government and to have impunity in doing so. The written word was one of the key reasons for the fomenting of the Revolution.
Be careful what you wish for, the tide will not always flow in a direction favorable to you.
22 posted on
07/09/2005 8:50:12 AM PDT by
Pylot
To: NathanBookman
Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton says the Cleveland daily is not reporting two major investigative stories of "profound importance" LOL... Just a bit over the top perhaps?
Can anyone name the last two investigative stories of "profound importance" that the Cleveland Plain Dealer broke?
29 posted on
07/09/2005 9:10:10 AM PDT by
RJL
To: NathanBookman
Two major investigative stories with profound importance Bush's fault and Rove is evil.
We can live without two more of these "big" stories.
30 posted on
07/09/2005 9:34:49 AM PDT by
builder
(I don't want a piece of someone else's pie)
To: NathanBookman
I think the Plain Dealer has to be about the worst paper I've ever read - even worse than those little neighborhood rags.
I live in the Cleveland area and we're a "one horse" town, newspaper-wise. Nonetheless I quit getting the Plain Dealer many years ago and now simply ignore local news as much as possible.
To: NathanBookman
"The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail, and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me,'" Clifton added, "but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail. That's what the lawyers have told us. So this is a Time Inc. sort of situation."
This is complete BS. A newspaper cannot "go to jail" for printing anything. The Pentagon Papers case settled that long ago.
33 posted on
07/09/2005 10:22:33 AM PDT by
joebuck
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson