To: syriacus
This is interesting. Thanks for posting this.What's most interesting to me is that I'm the one who is breaking this news story.
The Order was evidently issued on Friday. I would think that an Order compelling the New York Times to name confidential sources would be BIG news.
How come I'm the first to report this?
Ed
6 posted on
10/23/2006 9:12:48 AM PDT by
EdLake
To: EdLake
Ed, to your credit, you've been doing a damn good job of keeping track of the goings-on in the trials. As for most of the mainstream press, it's almost as though Hatfill never existed.
I suspect that once they get wind of the possibility of more newspapermen being forced to name sources or go to jail, you'll see the entire press wake up in a hurry.
8 posted on
10/23/2006 9:18:25 AM PDT by
jpl
(Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
To: EdLake
I would think that an Order compelling the New York Times to name confidential sources would be BIG news. I agree. Glad you noticed and reported on these happenings..
36 posted on
10/23/2006 10:44:58 AM PDT by
syriacus
(LORD, bless the good people of Iraq and our troops AND confound those who plot evil against them..)
To: EdLake
I would think that an Order compelling the New York Times to name confidential sources would be BIG news.How DARE you reach into the MSM's "memory hole"!
49 posted on
10/23/2006 3:12:16 PM PDT by
Stultis
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson