"The press is not to be concerned with the morals of its source."

[dooner]

Must read last few paragraphs at least. This contradicts what I heard decent journalst Greg Palast say. According to Palast, he tells all of his sources that his confidentiality agreement is void if he finds out they are using him for political gain, or lying. That makes good sense to me. This editor, Tom Honig needs some enlightenment (email address at end of long editorial.)

==================================
Don’t shoot the messenger — or the source
July 17, 2005, Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel
By Tom Honig, Editor

<snip>

But some letter-writers to this newspaper have claimed, essentially, that anyone asking Rove for information deserves to be jailed, and that Rove or others have no right to be protected by a reporter.

<snip>


In this case, it’s unclear whether a crime has been committed. In the aftermath of Wilson’s claims against the administration, someone identified his wife as a CIA agent. Whether doing so is an actionable offense is, as yet, unclear.

In today’s supercharged atmosphere of partisan politics, a surprising number of people on both sides of the political fence think a source should be turned in based on whether they support the Bush administration or not.

There are those who have decided that Rove is guilty and that New York Times reporter Judith Miller has no right to protect him because he’s an evil henchman of President Bush.

<snip>

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has gone too far with his fishing expedition into what Miller heard and from whom she heard it. In most states, shield laws protect journalists from this kind of over-reaching. But there’s no federal shield law — an oversight that Congress is now looking into.

The great journalist Carl Rowan once said, "A society is never in more peril than when the people lose the ability to identify a genuine threat to personal liberty."

The First Amendment makes clear that no law should be able to control the press. Protecting sources is a key component of press freedom, and we’re shocked by those of all political stripes who are willing to put principles aside simply to satisfy their partisan cravings.

"The presumptive duty of the press is to publish," said scholar Alexander Bickel back in 1975. "And not to guard security or be concerned with the morals of its source."

Yes, and that even includes presidential advisers.

Contact Tom Honig at [e-mail].

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/July/17/edit/stories/01edit.htm

[acmavm]

1. This guy is full of crap. And somebody better be worrying about that

stuff because if you look at Novak (and the republican party's fake reporter Gannon/Guckert), they sure as hell ain't worrying about it. The media has been out of control ever since the Connecticutt cowboy ran for office in 2000. It's sort of like someone turned off the ethical lights on the American media. Except for very very few sources, like Seymour Hersch and the blogs on the internet. In fact, I personally think the blogs and sites like this kept the media alive by not accepting the bullshit facist line-of-the-day.

Sounds like this guy is whining cuz he can't just print what he wants. Or because KKKarl is in trouble.

[stray cat]

2. The press should be concerned that is being used by politicians

[skids]

3. As an aside... one of the only times I ever agreed with Novak.

...was when everyone on one of his panel shows was saying that a source with a bad motive was to be ignored. Novak chimed up and said, no, that doesn't matter. And he was right there -- if a reporter gets information from a total asshole and that information can be verified and is worth printing, they should go right ahead.

But that is beside the point of confidentiality. The only time a reporter should protect a source that is breaking the law is when it is for the greater good, and the law is dubious. Noone has the right to ignore a crime when they see it happen, not preists, not lawyers, and not reporters.

What the MSM is doing is trying to make their reporters into a privilaged class exempt from the law, so that they can make a buck off their special access. I'm sorry, the price they are asking is too high when it allows criminals in high and mighty positions to skate gleefully around the law. This is a ploy by elitists to grab control of information, both on the part of the reporters and those who have use of them as a mouthpiece.