boi from troy?

boi from troy

boy, boi, you seem to have pissed off/annoyed a fair amount of people in a relatively short amount of time.

aside from the (aforementioned) fact that she didn't actually publish an article on the matter, i'd say you bring up a good point. she _could_ be protecting her source (which would mean she's doing the honorable, noble, 'journalistic-integrity correct' thing, here) and going to jail.

or, she _could_ be doing this as some sort of publicity stunt (i mean, it's only four months and it's not like she'll be in general population, anyway. not saying it'll be fun, but...) or something.

or maybe she really _doesn't_ have a source like boi suggested. it could be a way of stirring up media unrest. (perhaps to distract from something else? maybe just for the media whore's delight--a four month martyrdom? who knows?) in the past she has painted herself in a colour which some might call 'warmonger', though, i personally have to give her credit (whatever her motives) for sticking to her guns on this one. i'm not even gonna mention how i feel about rove on this one, but that aside, i think the supreme courts decision on this is ridiculous and have yet to hear a good argument to the contrary.

how is this situation different from attorney client privilege or doctor patient confidentiality? the source (assuming he or she existed) revealed something on the condition that he or she would remain anonymous. i can think of several reasons why someone would wish to remain invisible to the public. and now, because of this precedent, a reporter can't quite promise that anonymity with the solidity of the past.

thanks to the brave (whether selfish or not) actions of judy miller 'taking the bullet' for journalism, i s'pose one could make going to jail part of the promise, but what happens when they raise the sentence?

to the other commenters:

i think we all know that reporters prolly didn't give the orders. all the reporters did is do what reporters do--namely, hype up whatever topic is floating around like their job depends on it, and introduce whatever new, juicy new point of debate they can stir up.

the sad fact of the matter is that the 'liberal media' tends to take quite a conservative view these days, _skewing_ the truth as they need to in order to fit the demands of their corporate advertising base.

because of this model, mainstream media agencies make money that is more or less directly proportional to the ratings they generate (and consequent ad revenue they pull in based on those ratings).

if the corporate entity (and it's allied entities) which is paying millions for some of the ad spots on one of these media outlets doesn't like the view(s) expressed on said outlet, the outlet either complies or ceases to receive funding.

that kind of power tends to have the funny little ability to make people say (or not say) things they normally would. it makes people lose their jobs (and allows someone else to sell out...er, step up to the challenge of filling So-and-so's shoes).

now, don't get me wrong, here. not all media is bad. i find many, many interesting, insightful, and educated points of view on everything going on in the mainstream media (and more than you would ever realize that's not mainstream, but deserves to be...) from all kinds of sources.

but i find these great sources because i am always looking for them. there are a lot of great articles and reports and other sources of info, but much of it is not on the automatic stuff that gets piped into our faces whether we want it or not. most of that tends to be so heavily influenced by one point of view or another that you could pretty much call it propaganda.

i stress again--not all of it. and by no means is all indy media saintly, informed, and correct. there are some seriously malformed points of view out there, but that's why it's so important for us to, as citizens, educate ourselves. we need to look at all sides (or at least as many as we possibly can) and make up our own minds. we need to be aware of our world, and not just take what we're told at face value.

and when we see something wrong we need to speak our minds. do something about it. change the world.

jake, i think maybe she would look good in stripes (or maybe something in a nice, orange dayglo).

and i know i've been going on and on and this is only s'posed be be a comment, but why the hell would somebody in the whitehouse or otherwise even _be_ in a position to compromise an undercover agent? either the national intelligence system has just dramatically illustrated a massive flaw (i.e. an outside source leaking a name) in the way the system works, or else an internal source leaked the name (in which case everybody's looking at the wrong person). i dunno, but not everything about this story seems to add up.

anyhow, i'm gonna stop now, before i burst a blood vessel.

--cid

http://cidviscous.blogspot.com