Because Russert is a sleazeball... Now I must defend Bob Novak.

[Bucky]

Like most people here I dislike Robert Novak. I don't call him a whore, but only because I find it rude to insult working ladies. But one thing that Novak, traitor that he is, is right about is that the First Amendment means he shouldn't have to reveal his sources ever.

Even in a bad cause, the principles of the free press are more important than even the war we're fighting. All reporters, all patriots really, should stand up for our constitutional rights even when the strong arm of the law is brought against a reporter to force them to betray confidences.

Courts have held that reporters do not get the same exemption from betraying confidential sources the way spouses, doctors, and clergy do. That's why you will occasionally hear about reporters going to jail to protect the people who help them get important information out to the public. So here's where Tim Russet comes in...

Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case
Time Magazine's Cooper Threatened with Jail for Not Revealing Source

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 9, 2004

Newly released court orders show U.S. District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan two weeks ago ordered Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Tim Russert of NBC to appear before a grand jury and tell whether they knew that White House sources provided the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the media.

Cooper still refused to answer questions after Hogan's July 20 order, and on Aug. 6 Hogan held him in contempt of court and ordered that he go to jail. Cooper has been released on bond pending his emergency appeal to a federal appeals court. Hogan has ordered that Time pay a $1,000 fine for each day Cooper does not appear before the grand jury.

Sources close to the investigation said they believe Russert was not held in contempt Aug. 6 because he agreed to answer the questions after Hogan's July 20 ruling.

HUH?! Russert sees that another reporter is refusing to just betray confidential administration sources and so he just rolls his big fat OVERPAID ass right over and squeals like a stuck pig.

Again (although I shouldn't have to say this), I'm no fan of the traitors who outed Valerie Plame and weakened our fights against terrorists and weapons proliferation. They should be caught and punished. But they should NOT be caught by going thru the reporters they talked to.

The Constitution is more important than just one little war that'll be a trivia question thirty years from now. Am accountable government requires that reporters keep the trust of government leakers... it's a critical part of our governing process in an open democracy. When you allow people to get prosecuted for talking to reporters, you threaten the concept of open, transparent government.

Russert has no journalistic ethics at all. To save his ass from a well deserved butt plunging from a dude name Bruno, he sold out the First Amendment. Please do not sully the reputation of prostitutes by comparing him to them anymore.

[sasquatch]

1. Novak is no more of a Journalist than I am a Rabbi

Enough said

[Bucky]

3. Silly boy, of course he's journalist. He writes for a newspaper. Period.

What do you think a journalist is? A free press means people are free to express their opinions in print. His opinions are disagreeable, but in a free country you allow them. In fact the First Amendment is there specifically to protect dislikeable ideas. In this case Russert is wrong dead wrong and Novak just happens to have landed on the correct side of the issue.

Have you taken a civics class? They should have covered this point there.

[K-W]

5. Maybe in todays warped society

but there is a difference between a journalist and a columnist my friend.

[Baltimoreboy]

14. Care to tell us what that is?

A journalist can express an opinion and still do research and interviews and be called a columnist.

[K-W]

15. You said it pretty well yourself.

A journalist can express opinion and still do journalism.

Novak has never been a journalist. At no point in time did he engage himself in reporting news. He has been, from the very start, till this very day solely in the business of giving opinion and spin. Thus he is solely a pundit and columnist and not a journalist.

Yes they are not mutually exclusive, but in this case that isnt an issue, since Novak has never attempted to do journalism, yet he has often pretended that he does in order to steal the credibility of a journalist. He is a professional conservative spin machine.

why anyone on this forum wants to give him the lable of journalist evades my understanding.

[Baltimoreboy]

17. He did in this case

And that news was distributed nationwide or even worldwide. And, though I can't stand the fucker, I am sure he did so in other cases as well.

Sorry, there is no license for journalism.

Ultimately, many of us are cautious because we value the 1st Amendment and fear any constraints on it.

[K-W]

18. Like I said, I have no problem with you arguing first ammendment.

But dont classify Novak as a proffesional journalist. He has used that phony classification to mislead people and in part help the conservative movement dismantle our constitutional rights. If you care about the bill of rights, giving Novak staus as a journalist shouldnt be on your list of good ideas.

[K-W]

2. Novak isnt a reporter, he is a pundit.

I would be careful about mentioning the press in relation to him, he likes to masquerade as a reporter, but he has never actually been on.

I dont neccessarily disagree with your point, but I feel its important not be clear that Novak is not a journalist.

[Bucky]

4. Argh, another one. Pundits are journalists too. 1st Amendment covers them.

If you only champion the rights of people you agree with, you don't really support the First Amendment.

[K-W]

6. As I said, I dont disagree with your point, but Novak is NOT a journalist.

Pundits arent journalists. there was a time when opinion pages were filled by journalists, that time is passed.

[lapfog_1]

7. While he may have a point about his

1st Amendment rights, it galls me that HE is the one that
decided to throw this useless piece of information ( Palme was
a CIA agent ) into the public. It added nothing to the story,
and didn't detract at all from Joe Wilson. At best, one could
draw some sort of sleazy implication about the two of them
(Joe and Valerie) being married and both doing covert WMD work.
So it was mean and spiteful and small (what Novak did) and,
worse, Novak allowed him and his newspaper to be used.

Never mind the illegality.

So Novak doesn't rank very high in the journalists ethics arena.
And journalism is where is now attempting to hang his defense of
his knowledge and his sources. And that just sucks.

[rucky]

8. Let me explain why the 1st Amendment does not protect Novak:

Under any other circumstances I would agree with you that a reporter should not have to reveal a source. Usually this would apply in a "privlidge" scenario, where somebody blew a whistle on somebody, or confessed to a crime, or if the reporter uncovered information from a source that the police want to use as part of their investivation. The constitution protects the reporter, because printing the information is not a crime - the crime is the crime.

But in the Plame case, printing the information WAS the crime. There are no other laws that I can think of off the top of my head that apply like this. It is illegal to reveal the identity of an active CIA operative. Note that "reveal the identity" is speech. This is a fire-in-a-crowded theater situation where speech puts lives in danger. Doesn't matter who you are or what kind of clearance or credentials you have, if you have information that will endanger someone's life if released, then the person who chooses to release that information should be held responsible.

[Bucky]

10. Actually, it does. He broke no law, the WH did. The crime wasn't his

It's actually not against the law for a reporter (or, if you prefer, "a person who writes for a newspaper as a columnist or pundit") to print the name of an undercover agent. It's against the law for a government employee to do so. Novak can not go to jail for this. Scooter Libby, the probably leaker, could and should go to jail. He broke the law. As a private citizen, Novak only violated a moral code, not a legal code.

Honestly, the First Amendment protects even people we don't like. Amazing isn't it?

[enki23]

9. what a load

you have the right, under the first amendment, to name your sources if you choose. there is no constitutional obligation to keep silent regarding your source. doing so is your choice. journalistic ethics, or lack of it, is outside the jurisdiction of the first amendment.

in other words: jesus christ, this is a load of bullshit. or, if you prefer: holy fucking shit, this is complete, utter, unapproachable crap.

and from another direction entirely: what virtue is it to uphold a ideological loyalty in service to a dishonest regime? the first amendment is to protect us *from* the government, not to protect the fucking government from scrutiny. the freedom of the press is for *our* benefit. us. the people. and anyone who tries to paint obstruction of the plame trial as martyrdom might want to consider the fucking cause the martyrs choose to sacrifice themselves for.

in other, other words: holy jesus christ, this is a load of utter, complete, ineffable, undeniable, unimpeachable, godawful, goddamned bullshit.

[ronabop]

11. Russert was a potential witness to a federal crime.

That's a slightly different issue than protecting a whistleblower source. If the media refuses to disclose those involved in criminal actions, in order to protect the actors, well, I'd say that's a fairly big problem.

...and as far as Novak goes, he should be quiet because of the 5th amendment, not the 1st, IMNSHO.

-Bop

[Bucky]

12. Okay, now I know you'll agree with me: Novak's a weasel too

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly is deducing that, based on the story cited above, Novak seems to have squealed -- if only because he's not mentioned among those who have gone to or been threatened with going to jail in the WaPo article. He's supposed to be protected by the 1st Amendment, but that doesn't mean that he's going to honor it when his butt's on the line.

I mistakenly thought that he was covering up for the White House. Turns out he had bigger things to cover. Since I'm pretty sure we'd support any reporter in the same situation portecting a source in the Clinton or Kerry White Houses, I think integrity demands that the same protections be extended to any reporter, regardless of ideology of the White House.

Novak turning his back on the First Amendment doesn't surprise me. DUers doing so is truly sad.

[Guaranteed]

13. I hear ya

But at the same time it doesn't seem fair that journalists can get information from people secretly and go blabbing it all over the place, with no consequences for the source.

[trumad]

16. So if a crime is committed they should keep quite?

Does that mean any crime?

BTW: WOW! Hannity's a Journalist...who would have thunk it?