With a previous thread in mind here, I just wonder whether Ross might have viewed you, Dan, Jay, or Glenn as perhaps as too strong advocate-journalists who may have already reached conclusions. As discussed many times, that’s the chief pitfall of spurning objectivity.

Delia

P.S. The identity of “the sources” can be obtained through legal means without compromising ABC’s ability of using trustworthy confidential sources in the future. In the mean time, this would send the right message to those would be dishonest future “sources”: the courts will expose your identity if you use confidentiality for nefarious reasons. D.

This particular matter is not about a free press exposing governmental wrongdoing, but rather the press being used as a weapon in the perpetration of the worst class of evil that a government can do — creating lies to justify an illegal war of offense– a “Crime Against the Peace.” Journalists can have no shield when they are either acting in a criminal manner, or being used by the government in a criminal manner.

What about the time the Oliver North leaked info to Newsweek, then North turned around and blamed the Congress for same leak The reporter involved felt used and made it public. I think he was not only right to do this, but morally obligated to do so.

It is clear that the ABC reporters were used and abused in this case for an illegal and immoral purpose, a contravention of the Geneva conventions, a “Crime Against the Peace” (an illegal offensive war). They have an obligation to help uncover this.

The press has become corporatized. It is an integral part of the Corporativo Estado. It panders to the unitary executive, and no longer functions as the Fourth Estate. It transcribes the propaganda of the executive branch, shaping popular opinion rather than reporting news. Transcriptionists are not reporters, and should not have the same privileges.

If a journalist can not distinguish between a source, and someone who is trying to manufacture propaganda, then it must be left to the courts. And yes, I believe that a court can differentiate between a Daniel Ellsberg and a Judith Miller. If they can’t, then nothing else much matters anyway.

re: “These questions must be answered and let the chips fall as they may.”

I think we should step back and choose the alternative that renders us better off. There is always a possibility to game the system, whether the source is confidential or not. And I think the consequences I am offering are probable, not just possible. No sources — confidential or not — can game the system *with impunity* unless they are allowed to do that. Doesn’t mean the investigation should be stopped — there should be legal means of getting the identity of the sources if this was indeed conspiracy to deceive the public.

Delia

These questions must be answered and let the chips fall as they may.