Watergate Reporters Argue for Anonymity

[NVMojo]

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -

Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who broke the Watergate conspiracy story with, perhaps, the most famous source in journalism history, said Monday it's especially important to protect such sources now.

During a rare joint appearance, the duo told an audience at Harvard University they were concerned about prosecutors going after reporters and their sources, citing the investigation into the leak of a CIA analyst's identity.

"It is a really bad thing, for journalism, for the country. You will dry up the real story of what is going on in government," Woodward said.

Several reporters were subpoenaed to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/dec/05/120506458.html

[newscott]

1. What's really a bad thing is advocating for your source.

It should get you thrown in prison. They used to call it propaganda.

[napi21]

2. ISn't the Plame case different from Watergate?

In the Watergate story, the snitch was not involved in the crimes! He was a whistle blower.

In the Plame case, the reporters are actually complicit in the crime!

Isn't that completely different in the eyes of the law?

[BattyDem]

5. Exactly!

I have no problem with reporters protecting their whistle-blower sources ... but they can't use the "protecting my source" argument when they are participating in the criminal activity themselves! :eyes:

[MagickMuffin]

13. Then of course there is the issue

of protecting your source for giving you information concerning the government.

It's quite a different matter when that source is only providing you with gossip.

Isn't that what a lot of the "reporters" were saying about the leak, "It was only idle gossip, everyone knew Valerie Wilson was CIA."?

[SkiGuy]

3. also bad to ridicule the prosecuter

Is Woodward willing to do 5-10 to protect his source?

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. "rare joint appearance"

Yes, If I was Bernstein, I wouldn't want to be seen in public with Woodward either.

[rfkrfk]

6. is there some reason that reporters don't use phoney names

when writing about issues that might
interest a nosey prosecutor?

[napi21]

7. I suspect because that would be a lie.

There's a difference between not identifying your source by name, and naming a false source. A made-up name would be a false source.

[rfkrfk]

8. why, people use pseudonyms all the time

if an article is by-lined 'Mr.X' ,
do you consider that somehow deceitful?

[napi21]

9. You have to remember, the people that are in the middle of this

are supposed to be "reporters"! I think that's the difference.

[rfkrfk]

10. I don't recognise any special authority or responsibility...

just because someone claims to be a reporter.

by the way, I don't like the situation where reporters
try to become news issues as themselves,
but I can't do anything about that.

Coast to Coast AM, is on in a few minutes,
I trust their ''''''reporters'''''' about as much
as any others

[Jade Fox]

11. Woodward has not told the real story of what's going on...

in government for a long time. He's too busy carrying water for his Republican friends in Washington, and enjoying his status as their favorite celebrity reporter.

Bernstein should not be associating with him.

[banana republican]

12. let me get this right

the source "leaks" something to the press.

Then the "source" quotes the press as an original source...

Do I have this right????

Please tell me if not......

[The White Tree]

14. That seems absolutely wrong.

Maybe he needs to learn how to be a journalist again. What he seems to be saying is that this is going to make it more risky for people to leak information in the future. I think that might not be a bad thing. Whistle blowers and leakers should be doing so because they feel what they are doing is important and right for the country and be willing to accept the consequences if they are found out (at least that would be the prototypical idea of a person leaking info). Leakers shouldn't be able to do so with impugnity and an air of the casual. If their leaks have consequences on other peoples lives they need to be responsable for those leaks. The idea that he is proposing is what caused all the problem in the first place, the cozy relationship the press has with the administration leads many to beleive that they can use leaking as a tool and a means to and end to foment change within government or to influence peoples perception of it.

It would be better to just have more open government with less of a need for leaks and responsable journalism that covers government and holds it accountable.

[plasticsundance]

15. Me thinks I smell the scent of desperation

The answer's no, Bob.

The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.

Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1132253345109&has-player=false">The Man Who Sold the War

[Missy Vixen]

16. Oh, no! Call the WAAAmbulance!

>they were concerned about prosecutors going after reporters and their sources,<

Wow, Bob just doesn't learn, does he? Was he repeatedly dropped on his head as a child?

Bob, I have some advice for you: Mess with the bull, get the horn. Here's some more advice: Don't play word games with federal prosecutors.

>"It is a really bad thing, for journalism, for the country."<

I believe the operative word in that sentence is "journalism," which Bob has not had even a passing familiarity with for quite some time now...

This story just keeps getting better. :woohoo:

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Little Star]

17. Reporters protecting the * cabal and calling them sources

is ludicrous! They (this mis-administration) are so called public servants and we the people have the right to know the who, what, where, when and why of everything they do. Reporters are suppose to report the news not be a judge of who they should protect. They way reporters have been doing their (protect the source reporting) is exactly why we have an uninformed public today. The only place you can get any kind of a true story today is certainly not from MSM reporters. Yeah, reporters have been doing a great job of reporting and this so called protect there public officials sources thing has worked splendidly!:sarcasm: