[Timesink]

Re your post #83 - But there are types of "journalistic fraud" that I think also fall into the category of "criminal fraud." I can't recall exactly what Blair wrote about the sniper case, but if Blair's reporting causes harm or damages to the prosecutor's case against the defendant, and let's say willfull, false reporting by Blair somehow allows the sniper suspect to go free, then, we are in a whole other category of fraud, way beyond whatever we may have previously defined as "jounalistic" fraud.

I will agree with you here. When I was posting that, my mind was only thinking of average "journalistic fraud" ... making up crap, stealing paragraphs from other papers, minor league stuff. What you're talking about, to my way of thinking, is beyond mere "journalism" at all; it would be plain old interfering with prosecution, albeit done in a relatively novel fashion.

Of course, this just tells you about my thought processes more than anything else. *grin*

[summer]

RE your post #92 - LOL! :)

Timesink, what you now realize is what I think Howard Kurtz meant in his televised suggestion about a new law: that we have to start recognizing "journalism fraud" here in this Jayson Blair case has reached incredible, new levels, previously unimagined. And, this activity can not continue, even if the NYT management disagrees and insists there is a rational for actively encouraging it.