While I am enjoying the (long overdue) Rove/Bush meltdown regarding Wilsongate, I am more than a little disconcerted by some of the rhetoric in my (left) half of the blogosphere. Are we really talking about forcing reporters to blow the anonymity of sources, here? Do we really want to go there?
Fellow bloggers, reporters' privilege exists for a reason. Imagine if this scandal were, instead, an Office of Special Plans' plot to overthrow Lula a la Chile in 1973. Imagine that a CIA source with the cojones to do something about it leaked the plot anonymously to Robert Scheer. Cheney would be howling with rage, demanding the offending agent's head on a plate, and the NuCon shills would be parroting along dutifully. And there's the real-world parallel to consider: an administration official confirmed that Novak's sources are legit. Anonymously. The White House could insist on a "fair and balanced" revelation, forcing NBC to out its resource as well.
The anonymity of sources is one of the most important tools in a reporter's arsenal when it comes to gathering facts. A journalist who gives up a source is not only committing career seppuku, they're weakening the entire press and its ability (such as it is) to get us the intel we need to be informed.
Patience, my friends. McClellan was just torn to shreds during the daily gaggle. The reporters know whodunit, and they're throwing themselves into making sure we learn who the culprits are as well. Sooner or later, the truth will out -- and if all goes well, not one source will have to be compromised.
After all, isn't such indiscretion what got Rove into this mess in the first place?
(/) Roland X
Who doesn't know what being "frogmarched" is, but looks forward to learning by watching Rove ;^)
No comments:
Post a Comment