What is it that Jon Stewart calls him? "Douchebag of Liberty," or some such thing?
I would have loved to see him squirm for his hypocrisy, and yet I can't help but think that if journalists are forced to reveal their sources, a lot of good journalism could die a quick death. How far would Watergate have gone if revelation of Deep Throat's identity was a possibility or worse, a guarantee? I hate that the principle protects "journalists" like Novak, who aren't worth the paper their crap is printed on, but for the benefit of investigative journalism (if anyone in the press remembers what that is), it seems to me that sources' identities have to be protected.
and yet I can't help but think that if journalists are forced to reveal their sources, a lot of good journalism could die a quick death
I agree with you to a point (except maybe your premise that there is a lot of good journalism right now ::g::), but there are exceptions to the journalists' privilege. I'd have to brush up on my notes from last year, but I think it's *possible* that Novak's situation could fail to qualify for the privilege, since the act of *telling* him her name was a felony. I don't think being the passive recipient of this information makes him criminally liable, but he has personal knowledge of a federal felony that seriously compromised both an individual's life and national security.
Distinguish that from the leaked documents on CBS, which if they're not fraudulant, are also not classified and, therefore, no crime was committed in their production to a media outlet. So. Yeah.
your premise that there is a lot of good journalism right now
Hmm. Not really a premise, so much. More of a wishful thought. 'Cause lord knows, nobody seems to know the meaning of the term "investigative journalism" anymore.
Yeah, I think it was yesterday on Crossfire when Novak said it had been "documented" that John Kerry shot himself so he could qualify for a Purple Heart.
You can imagine the phone call I got from Liberal Pinko Commie Mom after that one.
I'd have to brush up on my notes from last year, but I think it's *possible* that Novak's situation could fail to qualify for the privilege, since the act of *telling* him her name was a felony.
As much as I hate Novak, I feel the need to point out that journalists and lawyers define a reporter's privilege differently. I had it drummed in me back in journalism school that privilege is absolute. You never, ever give up a source's name when you've promised him/her anonymity. You go to jail before you give up a source's name. It's hardly surprising that Novak's being a hypocrite on this one, but refusing to reveal your source can be like an automatic response for journalists.
Comments 7
Reply
I would have loved to see him squirm for his hypocrisy, and yet I can't help but think that if journalists are forced to reveal their sources, a lot of good journalism could die a quick death. How far would Watergate have gone if revelation of Deep Throat's identity was a possibility or worse, a guarantee? I hate that the principle protects "journalists" like Novak, who aren't worth the paper their crap is printed on, but for the benefit of investigative journalism (if anyone in the press remembers what that is), it seems to me that sources' identities have to be protected.
He really is just a little toad, isn't he?
Reply
I agree with you to a point (except maybe your premise that there is a lot of good journalism right now ::g::), but there are exceptions to the journalists' privilege. I'd have to brush up on my notes from last year, but I think it's *possible* that Novak's situation could fail to qualify for the privilege, since the act of *telling* him her name was a felony. I don't think being the passive recipient of this information makes him criminally liable, but he has personal knowledge of a federal felony that seriously compromised both an individual's life and national security.
Distinguish that from the leaked documents on CBS, which if they're not fraudulant, are also not classified and, therefore, no crime was committed in their production to a media outlet. So. Yeah.
But he really is a toad. ::hates::
Reply
Hmm. Not really a premise, so much. More of a wishful thought. 'Cause lord knows, nobody seems to know the meaning of the term "investigative journalism" anymore.
Sigh.
Reply
You can imagine the phone call I got from Liberal Pinko Commie Mom after that one.
I'd have to brush up on my notes from last year, but I think it's *possible* that Novak's situation could fail to qualify for the privilege, since the act of *telling* him her name was a felony.
As much as I hate Novak, I feel the need to point out that journalists and lawyers define a reporter's privilege differently. I had it drummed in me back in journalism school that privilege is absolute. You never, ever give up a source's name when you've promised him/her anonymity. You go to jail before you give up a source's name. It's hardly surprising that Novak's being a hypocrite on this one, but refusing to reveal your source can be like an automatic response for journalists.
Reply
Leave a comment