Free Press?? :=8/
Don't ferget u can always e-mail the MooCow with cowments at MooCowMoo@aol.com!!!

I tried, I really tried to keep politics out of the blog today, to celebrate the birth of my friend's new daughter, but my agents in the field cowtinue to send me juicy bits to rant over. The latest: journalists being forced to relinquish their protected rights to shield their sources of information. Yet an-udder Bush administration witch-hunt, I'm afraid. Not that I care two flops about what happens to a couple of journos, mind you, but since a "free press' is one of the building blocks of a democracy, it would be nice to keep what little we have left over here. Here is what's going on (thanks, John!):

Now, federal prosecutors are threatening every reporter's ability to protect sources who expose sensitive information. The most high-profile case went before a federal appeals court Wednesday in Washington, where two reporters are fighting to keep their promise — and to stay out of jail. The tangled tale that led to court started last year when someone in the Bush administration leaked the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to several reporters, apparently to retaliate against Plame's husband, a former diplomat who had criticized the administration.


One of the journalists, syndicated columnist Robert Novak, put Plame's name in a column. It can be a federal crime for a government official to identify a CIA operative, so a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, began investigating the leak.

For unknown reasons, Fitzgerald's search for the leaker appears focused not on Novak, but on Time magazine's Matt Cooper, who wrote about the matter days after Novak did, and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who never wrote about it. If Cooper and Miller continue to refuse to testify about their contacts, they face 18 months in prison.
It would be hard to find a tougher case to defend. Plame's identity, after all, was leaked not to expose government wrongdoing, but to punish a political enemy. Further, indiscriminate use of anonymous sources is far too common.

Trouble is, the privilege to keep a source's name confidential either exists or it doesn't. If one reporter is forced to give up a name, no reporter — and, more to the point, no whistle-blower or other source — is safe. That's why 25 reporters' groups and news organizations, including USA TODAY's parent company, Gannett, support the reporters' appeal.
Nor is this an isolated case. Six more reporters across the nation face similar demands from federal prosecutors or civil lawyers. They shouldn't have to expose sources. Any gain from catching the leakers is more than outweighed by the loss.

If the press's ability to serve as a watchdog on government and others in power is impaired, the public is left more vulnerable. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia recognize that, and have passed laws that help reporters protect their sources. Courts in other states have granted similar protections. Those shields are much like the laws that protect confidences shared with lawyers and psychotherapists. But no broad protection exists in federal law, a void that leaves reporters in jeopardy.

The surest solution is a federal shield law. One was introduced in Congress last month by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. Short of that, prosecutors need to exhaust all other means before trying to turn reporters into snitches. And federal judges need to recognize that shielding sources allows the media to do its most critical job, exposing the truth.

If judges fail to do that in the case argued Wednesday, the real loser will be the public.

Oh, and of course, Novak is the right-wing columnist - can't have a special prosecutor investigating him, can we? The whole CIA operative leak fiasco is a cow pie that has stunk to high heaven since the previous presidential term, and it isn't going away anytime soon. Yet an-udder example of the Bush Administration and the radical right-wing zealots of this country who strike out against anyone who speaks out against them and their fascist ways. this cow, for one, refuses to be intimidated, and will cowtinue to blog away merrily, without divulging sources.

:=8P




- posted by The MooCow @ 11:28 PM