Ruling on the Plame Case


Posted by Bruno on February 15th, 2005

Looks like Judith Miller will have to testify.

It seems pretty obvious that there’s no constitutional right to a reporter protecting her sources. Yet, at the same time, I sympathize with this concern:

Lawyers for media organizations say the law on protecting reporters from subpoenas in criminal matters is very weak, and they had expected the appeals court to rule against the reporters. They expressed concern that the decision will drive confidential sources underground — and leave the public more in the dark about the inner workings of its government.

The media is vital to democracy. I know it’s cliche, but it was Jefferson who said that, given the choice between the press and the government, he’d choose the press.

So here’s my question: how come Novak doesn’t have to testify?


No Responses to “Ruling on the Plame Case”  

  1. No Comments

Leave a Reply

You must log in to post a comment.


Now Playing: Episode 366

 
 Standard Podcast [31:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Obama staffs up, Detroit comes to DC and finally, Iraq and the US come to a security agreement.

Links Mentioned: Iraq SOFApros and cons of a bailout.