After seeing Cooper and his press conference.....

[HardWorkingDem]

something hit me -

His role isn't about protecting sources and free flow of information like he whined about, but instead about keeping a source and a meal ticket. It wasn't about First Amendment issues but instead about his own career and his own selfish work. I sit back and watch all of these reporters and for the life of me can't understand how any of them are blind to how they have been manipulated and used these past few years.

So for the Cooper's and Miller's of the press world, that clearly shows to me that this is all about their own asses and not democracy and liberty.

Some editorialist much more smarter than I (can't recall who) mentioned that where Rove's leak differs is that Rove was committing a criminal act, while true whistleblowers are releasing information about criminal acts. These two issues might seem similar, but actually they are worlds apart.

[eleny]

1. I agree that this issue is about the possibility of a criminal act

But I wouldn't be so tough in criticism of journalists. Their livlihood can often rely on an anonymous source. So all this has to be wrangled out.

This situation demands justice since national security is what got tossed out the window. But if it had not been for keeping sources anonymous we might have buried King Nixon and not an ex prez when Dick died.

[Cocoa]

2. "double super secret background"

Karl Rove likes me, he really likes me!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050710/cm_huffpost/003933/nc:742

In that email, Cooper wrote that he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues."

[Justice]

3. sorry, is there a link to press conference - I missed it.

[HardWorkingDem]

4. It was the other day...

when it was announced he would be testifying. He just answered a few questions and said that it was a sad day for journalism.

What gets me is when he took that information from Rove, didn't he ask himself how odd it was to receive that information? Especially when what Wilson found out was the truth and Rove and the Bush's were trying to smear that truth by politics.

[senseandsensibility]

5. Welsome to DU

Good post!:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

6. I hope that attitude isn't for ALL journalists

but just some.

I have this feeling, perhaps unfounded, that some of us are almost turning on journalists enmass. "First Amendment rights -- pah!" and such.

What's really going on vs. what they say is going on, in other words, meal ticket vs journalistic integrity, aside, this example will be used by editors across the country, and will have a chilling effect on stories that should be getting out.

I'm thinking ramifications here, not just about the merits of this one case. Regardless of whether it should be or not, I fear this whole thing with Cooper and Miller will have a generally bad effect on what's left of investigative journalism in this country.

[HardWorkingDem]

7. In the age of McJournalism.....

I don't think a true journalist would have allowed him or herself to have been put in this position.

Let's be honest here.....even though we are biased towards Democrats, why isn't that Cooper and Miller's radar detectors didn't start going off when Rove contacted them? Didn't they think about what that meant? Bush's number one POLITICAL operative calling them to mention that Wilson's "wife" worked for the CIA.

The actual fear here should be what this says about TRUE journalism versus that of people trying to keep their fat cows happy so they can keep their cash cow bringing in the dollars.

[LittleClarkie]

8. See, I'm not talking about even that

I'm not talking about putting yourself in such a position.

I'm talking about editors who have investigative journalists working for them with even whistleblowing sources. Will sources be less likely to come forward now, if they can't be sure if the editors can be trusted, even if the journalist can? Will an editor even run a story if there is a possibility of trouble?

What do we think will be the ramifications in the field? Are we sure there won't be any? I think these questions need to be asked.

I guess my ancient history as a journalist, old and moldy though it may be, is causing my alarms to go off at the idea that a journalist being able to protect a source isn't an absolute right. Might be my own personal hangup, but I don't think it's just me. We're seeing journalists we normally respect reacting similarly.