• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Uneasy bedfellows in investigation of CIA leak. White House and journalists both under scrutiny.

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Robert Novak refuses to release the names of his sources who have damaged America's national security.

Instead of using the Patriot Act to attack small time criminals Asscroft should be using it here, now.

From the San Fransisco Chronicle

Uneasy bedfellows in investigation of CIA leak

"The first real political scandal of the Bush administration appears to have legs, to the discomfort of an unusually large number of people in Washington --

both in the White House and the press corps."

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,148
3,839
126
Obviously if the press barred Novak as a practitioner, he would no longer have his job to protect.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
As long as Novak (or any other journalist for that matter) brings readers to the table, his vocation is safe.

The obvious problem with this is, of course, capitalism. We should take the money out of journalism.

I really think the biggest issue to overcome with regard to journalism is its inherent competitive nature. As Moonie has shown us time and time again, competition is really just hatred. All these journalists trying to "scoop" one another, it's sick!

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
As long as Novak (or any other journalist for that matter) brings readers to the table, his vocation is safe.

The obvious problem with this is, of course, capitalism. We should take the money out of journalism.

I really think the biggest issue to overcome with regard to journalism is its inherent competitive nature. As Moonie has shown us time and time again, competition is really just hatred. All these journalists trying to "scoop" one another, it's sick!
By the same token we should take the money out of politics then as well.

But that isn't going to happen. And no one is taking the money out of journalism either.

What are you advocating? A socialist free press?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,148
3,839
126
Originally posted by: Corn
As long as Novak (or any other journalist for that matter) brings readers to the table, his vocation is safe.

The obvious problem with this is, of course, capitalism. We should take the money out of journalism.

I really think the biggest issue to overcome with regard to journalism is its inherent competitive nature. As Moonie has shown us time and time again, competition is really just hatred. All these journalists trying to "scoop" one another, it's sick!
You are getting smarter all the time Corn. We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Regarding Novak..

Did he commit a crime? He is the one who named a CIA person to the open air. Did his source name the CIA person with the intent to get it to open air? Is it a proper journalistic endevor to name CIA people when it is known to the reporter by any means?
It seems to me the US Code deals with divulging in any manner the names, methods etc of covert US security interests. The Attorney General is charged with the task of prosecuting this issue. If he fails to he has violated his oath of office. The folks who are career members of Justice will not let this just blow by. I don't think.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Lucky
he needs to protect his sources.
No - he doesn't need to protect squat and is only trying tp protect his own hide. Under normal circumstances the press shouldn't be forced to devulge their sources by the gov't - right? Has it not been the left who has championed this cause, to keep the gov't out of the press? But since this is a "security" issue now, I feel it would be prudent for Novak to cite his sources, even though it can be argued that saying someone is employed at the CIA wasn't a breech as only now do we find out that she was "undercover" and the rest. Novak and the press could easily resolve this but they don't want to - they want to keep "selling news" - what better opportunity to sell "news" than this, when it is themselves who have created this "news".

But - again either way the press handles this could lead to a slippery slope concept. If they reveal the name(s) of the source - then they won't get the "juicy" insider tips, thus creating the possibility of a more secretive gov't. On the other hand If they don't reveal it willingly then the gov't may have no choice but to "force" it out of them which could create a whole other set of "powerfull" gov't problems.

I'm sure people will bitch either way and some here will bitch no matter which course of action is taken;)

CkG
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
That's right Moonie, freedom of the press is no longer necessary. I think President Bush should immediately take you up on your suggestion and ban all non-governmentally approved news. Good thinking!!!


 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
CAD,
I think I'm right when I say that National Security Issues fall under a different umbrella. Freedom of the Press is a right but, subordinated to the umbrella of secrecy all nations must enjoy if they are to protect the Freedoms we enjoy and the US has codified them into law. Unless I missed the secrecy act meaning. I could understand it if it was an issue of possible doubt but even I know you don't further a conspiracy to release the name of a covert CIA person. (if that was the case) Or, in any manner, divulge such secrets.

I do not believe the 'shield law' protects Novak in this.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Corn
We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
That's right Moonie, freedom of the press is no longer necessary. I think President Bush should immediately take you up on your suggestion and ban all non-governmentally approved news. Good thinking!!!

Corn.. it would allow us to sleep well.. we wouldn't have all these issues to ponder. We'd only read how well we're doing and that it is ok to spend and ok to feel good about the government.
ahhh, the garden revisited..
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: Lucky
he needs to protect his sources.
He really should have been protecting the undercover CIA agent and her sources.
he had no way of knowing she was undercover. it's not illegal or unethical simply to out a normal CIA officer. bush's justice department has invaded on journalistic territory before by secretly obtaining phone records in attempts to clean sources from that before. you cant simply force someone to tell sources, and i think at this junction in the war and presidential election it would be extremely unwise for the bush administration to go heavy handed in this situation. if they want to play hardball, it goes both ways.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,148
3,839
126
Originally posted by: Corn
We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
That's right Moonie, freedom of the press is no longer necessary. I think President Bush should immediately take you up on your suggestion and ban all non-governmentally approved news. Good thinking!!!
Ah for crap sake, Corn. No sooner do you show signs of intelligence than you revert to type. The public funds the news, but has no editorial say in what gets printed. We need a return to professional journalism.
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
That's right Moonie, freedom of the press is no longer necessary. I think President Bush should immediately take you up on your suggestion and ban all non-governmentally approved news. Good thinking!!!
Ah for crap sake, Corn. No sooner do you show signs of intelligence than you revert to type. The public funds the news, but has no editorial say in what gets printed. We need a return to professional journalism.
somehow when that theory is employed (BBC, NPR) the leftists gain control (Kelley+Iraq War / Rush Limbaugh interview)
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: Lucky
he needs to protect his sources.
He really should have been protecting the undercover CIA agent and her sources.
he had no way of knowing she was undercover. it's not illegal or unethical simply to out a normal CIA officer. bush's justice department has invaded on journalistic territory before by secretly obtaining phone records in attempts to clean sources from that before. you cant simply force someone to tell sources, and i think at this junction in the war and presidential election it would be extremely unwise for the bush administration to go heavy handed in this situation. if they want to play hardball, it goes both ways.
Novak didn't just reveal her name and the fact she worked for the CIA, he revealed her undercover company. There was absolutely no reason for doing that besides vindictiveness. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what he was doing. Now he's just covering his ass.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Ah for crap sake, Corn. No sooner do you show signs of intelligence than you revert to type. The public funds the news, but has no editorial say in what gets printed. We need a return to professional journalism.
I'm not sure you even half understand what it is you are saying Moonie. If it's the public who is "funding" the "news", than whom do you think it is who would be making the decision as to what gets printed?

It's all well and good that you are a hater of freedom Moonie. As per usual, you lefties don't believe the public capable of making cogent decisions about how they should behave. Of course you have a better way.....why allow them the freedom to make a "bad" choice (relatively speaking of course) when you are there to choose whats right for them.

Boy, and you thought Ashcroft was a fascist, he don't hold a candle to you Moonie.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Corn,
You have distilled again, I see.. :)
We are fed by the 'news' that which they see as newsworthy AND what will further their own audience growth. For the purpose of meeting the bottom line requirements and the edification of that audience. They 'spin' to their audience as they perceive them to be. Walter Winchell or Edward R. Murrow and the rest of that generation were there to tell it as they saw it. We developed a reliance on them for our infomation. The News portion of the major broadcasters always lost money. The purpose was a public service, I think. It has changed with the quantity of sources and the almighty buck.
I don't think it is something that can be 'solved' given the need to say the same thing a bit different to attact attention and gain an audience... we need going out and getting the info ourselves or develop a trusted single source news entity.. no spin just the facts maam..

IMO :D
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
we need going out and getting the info ourselves or develop a trusted single source news entity.. no spin just the facts maam..
Why do we *need* a "*single* source news entity? What do we gain by this other than the loss of freedom? Please enlighten me as to why the liberal slant that dominates print and television news coverage such a terrible thing? After all, we have Fox News to balance it out, right? Besides, don't we already have such a "trusted single source" in the various "public" programming out there?

Walter Winchell or Edward R. Murrow and the rest of that generation were there to tell it as they saw it.
Tell me about "bias". Who on this earth is without it? Bias in inescapable when reporting the news, because it's filtered through the reporter's bias, intentionally or unintentionally. There is no such thing as "bias free" reporting, there never can be.

Besides, who gets to determine who that "single source of news" is anyway? Do the people charged with determining that have any bias?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,148
3,839
126
Originally posted by: Corn
Ah for crap sake, Corn. No sooner do you show signs of intelligence than you revert to type. The public funds the news, but has no editorial say in what gets printed. We need a return to professional journalism.
I'm not sure you even half understand what it is you are saying Moonie. If it's the public who is "funding" the "news", than whom do you think it is who would be making the decision as to what gets printed?

It's all well and good that you are a hater of freedom Moonie. As per usual, you lefties don't believe the public capable of making cogent decisions about how they should behave. Of course you have a better way.....why allow them the freedom to make a "bad" choice (relatively speaking of course) when you are there to choose whats right for them.

Boy, and you thought Ashcroft was a fascist, he don't hold a candle to you Moonie.
Well of course not. He's stupid and thinks he's right. And I'm not sure you understand even half of what you are saying. But your question was too hard for me. Who would make the decisions as to what would get printed? Isn't the issue not who would make the decision, but on what basis? Enlighten me. And calling me a freedom hater I guess rings your bell, but it's rather immature and unsupported. How am I making choices for them, whoever them is? What are you, some proponent of direct democracy? Somebody now makes your choices for you. And the public is a machine on auto-pilot, They aren't deciding anything but are just along for the ride. You don't choose when you're asleep except in a lucid dream.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,749
0
0
M.beam:

We NEED Fox News. We have a shortage of comedy channels.... :),

Anyway, if I want to know what I don't believe, I listen to Fox. If I want a chuckle, I listen to Fox. If I've just picked up my oxycontin from Rush, then I tune in to Fox. If I want to pretend I started First Grade at 15, and never made it to Second Grade, I watch Fox News. And where else can you get your news with T & A thrown in? I'm surprised Murdock doesn't have babes stripping in the background of The Factor. (actually, "disappointed" is more accurate).

DOOD, you are completely missing the value of Fox News! Grab a pint and enjoy....

I can't imagine a life without The Factor....

-Robert
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: Lucky
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Corn
We need public funded news and a ban on news as intertainment, a side show to sell product.
That's right Moonie, freedom of the press is no longer necessary. I think President Bush should immediately take you up on your suggestion and ban all non-governmentally approved news. Good thinking!!!
Ah for crap sake, Corn. No sooner do you show signs of intelligence than you revert to type. The public funds the news, but has no editorial say in what gets printed. We need a return to professional journalism.
somehow when that theory is employed (BBC, NPR) the leftists gain control (Kelley+Iraq War / Rush Limbaugh interview)
whatever

the communist BBC brings quality journalism and FOX is just garbage

I have a new theory about the liberal media and universities.
IMO the right wingers lack the brains to become decent journalists or professors.
There is no left-wing conspiracy in the media and in the education system.
Right wingers just don't have the brain capacity :D
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: chess9
M.beam:

We NEED Fox News. We have a shortage of comedy channels.... :),

Anyway, if I want to know what I don't believe, I listen to Fox. If I want a chuckle, I listen to Fox. If I've just picked up my oxycontin from Rush, then I tune in to Fox. If I want to pretend I started First Grade at 15, and never made it to Second Grade, I watch Fox News. And where else can you get your news with T & A thrown in? I'm surprised Murdock doesn't have babes stripping in the background of The Factor. (actually, "disappointed" is more accurate).

DOOD, you are completely missing the value of Fox News! Grab a pint and enjoy....

I can't imagine a life without The Factor....

-Robert
I get it. Fox "News" is really meant to be humor-news, like SNL's Weekend Update and the "NBC Slightly News" spoofs they play on the local radio station. We're supposed to watch it and chuckle at their silly parodies of neo-"conservative" thinking. Too bad the neocons don't realize they aren't serious.

Has anyone invented a Faux News drinking game yet?

 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
I wake early every morning to read several newspapers.

I have an idea of what I expect to find there. Along with the knowledge that I will read about new events that have happened. I'm surprised every morning by the lack of coverage of this story.

I guess the "liberal" press doesn't feel a story about an illegal, intentional attack on national security by members of the Bush White House and the conservative press should be printed.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I have a new theory about the liberal media and universities.
IMO the right wingers lack the brains to become decent journalists or professors.
There is no left-wing conspiracy in the media and in the education system.
Right wingers just don't have the brain capacity :D
Interesting. Rich = Republican. Republican = Right. Evidently in our stupor, we ended up controlling the vast majority of the world's wealth. Strange.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY