cnn/wolf/woodward/bernstein. on cnn now

[dogindia]

Still the issues are not being addressed clearly.

Press should protect sources but not those that do a crime by ....well outing cia agent etc.

I still say protect Deep Throat...he did not commit a crime.
but how can a reporter protect someone who does?

Except so much of press is covering up crimes.

[faithnotgreed]

1. i would only like to hear bernstein but not the others. hope there is some

balance in the report
but i dont expect it with wolf and woodward

[gordianot]

2. If Deep Throat repeated information from Grand Jury he did commit a crime.

Try this sometime after being called to a secret Grand Jury, repeat what was said to the press use your name and find out how long it takes the Prosecutor to throw you in jail.

Or as a Prosecutor in the Grand Jury, repeat what was said before an indictment in the proceedings and find out how long you have case.

[EC]

5. He didn't give info from the Grand Jury

he gave info TO the Grand Jury, via Woodward and Bernstein

[BCBud]

3. Carl(with a C) was awesome!!!!!!

Hearing Bernstein speak made me feel good. You don't hear that kind of honesty on CNN very often. I doubt you will being seeing much more of him there. They seem to like guests that do more chuckling. I would have thought that Woodward would be a little more....I don't know...... INSIGHTFUL!!!!

[dogindia]

4. Carl was real.

[peacetalksforall]

6. MSM press and formerly honorable journalists have it wrong.....

in my book....
a journalist is a third party. In their code, there are two entities and the journalist is an interested party by virtue of news and exposure and the good of the country. In the typical situation, the journalist is neither the wrongdoer(s) or the 'whistleblower-talker (the person who reveals). The journalist is the third party who gets involved after the fact and investigates in order to determine if the journalist will write it up or drop it.

In the Plame situation...we don't have a typical journalist third party situation. We have journalists acting in partnership with the whouse to destroy a citizen and a department of the CIA. This act should not be protected by the journalist's oath.

In the typical case:
. wrongdoer(s)
. whistleblower(s)
. journalist (third party)

In the Plame case - breaking the law by exposure -
. wrongdoer(s): whouse and/or Miller (if she revealed Plame's identity TO Rove as has been postualted)
. whistleblower(s): none
. journalist(s): co-conspirator with whouse

It is absolutely un-American to pretend that this situation is a typical situation where the journalist must remain silent. I resent every single mouthpiece who wails about Miller being sent to prison.

If you are a partner in the exposure and break the law - how can you demand to be silent. Where am I wrong? If I'm not wrong, why would all these journalists pull the wool over our eyes about Miller and/pr Novak if not to protect the whouse?

So why do we have journalists giving Scotty a hard time, then turn around and call Miller a martyr and cry because they feel her jail sentence will pull down the journalist-whistleblower role?
There has to be an limit to privilege - as already stated (by the Judge or by Fitzgerald). The right wing media and others are spreading the crap about the journalist's code.

[dogindia]

7. thank you.

All the lies have pickled the mind of almost every commentator and many others.

Novak...all of them outed Plame. They are part of the deed.

Protecting sources is just a cover. Like a strange way to protect the right wing corporate press covering up illegal wars etc.

Strange how media/rw government has compromised thought and logic