Replies

even Mr. Blumenthal's account does not show any such series of questions being asked. He's proud of his lie. "My brief remarks outside the courthouse had been broadcast on every network news show and reported on the front page of almost every newspaper. The New York Times/CBS News poll showed, as the Times wrote, 'a plummeting public approval rating' for Starr. His favorable rating had sunk to 11 percent, one of the lowest ever recorded for any public figure, while President Clinton's rating had reached 73 percent."

This is just the public tip of the iceberg; recall that a lot of the time information damaging to the Clintons was leaked on the Clinton timetable--and anonymously--and the Clinton White House blamed the leaks on Ken Starr. The charges were investigated, and later discredited--but the Clinton system of always keeping one step ahead of the law was served. The journalists who published the leaks obviously had to know where they were coming from.
This is a First Amendment jurisprudence scandal, in that the Constitution has been interpreted, illogically, as conferring a "protection of sources" immunity for "the press". And that illegitimate immunity allowed Blumenthal et al to smear Starr with the accusation that Starr was illegally leaking priveledged Grand Jury information. I'm sure you'll find The New York Times smack in the middle of that deception . . .
So much for your so-called "right to know" . . .
No Wars, Only Scandals

The FCC is inherently dangerous because its function is censorship. That censorship is "necessary" to the extent that broadcast reception--your "right" to receive government licensees' signals--is "necessary."

But the Constitution was framed for a society which didn't have radio, TV, or the Internet, and it worked without them. In fact, broadcast journalism's bland assurance that we have "a right to know what's going on"--and are able to have our representatives know what we want (not only by our letters but through the magic of polling)--that is the sole support for the ridiculous conceit that "Character doesn't matter" which was so useful to x42.

In fact of course we don't know a lot of things which are going on, and we especially didn't know back in the nineties, when x42 had his minions spreading disinformation to the Democrats known as journalists. And journalists didn't tell us everything they knew that was important, either--they "protected the sources" of leaks from those x42 minions. Leaks which were nominally damaging to x42 but were timed for minimum effect on him. Leaks which were used to besmirch the reputation of Ken Starr--who was not allowed to reveal the information being leaked, but was accused of being the source by the actual source.

Obviously the journalists publishing the leaks knew who the source actually was, but they published the WH charges which they knew to be false without revealing that in fact they knew they were false. So much for your "right to know." And so much for the idea that "Character doesn't matter."