Reporters and Their Sources in a Maelstrom
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
It is obvious that columnist Robert D. Novak knows the names of his two sources referred to in his column "outing" the identity of a CIA covert operative [op-ed, July 14, 2003].
Mr. Novak reportedly testified before a grand jury. There are but two possible results:
One, he revealed the names of his two sources, who should then be investigated and possibly prosecuted for violating U.S. law.
Or, two, he refused to identify his two sources, in which case he should be held in contempt of court and sent to jail until he gives up their names.
Yet it has been New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time correspondent Matthew Cooper who faced imprisonment -- and Ms. Miller is now behind bars -- while Mr. Novak, who probably has the information sought by the U.S. prosecutor, has faced no such threat.
MARK HOPKINS
Washington
ยท
Many people seem to think that Judith Miller has been defending a whistle-blower's attempt to unearth corruption, mismanagement and fraud in refusing to reveal her sources [front page, July 7]. I'd be behind her if that were the case.
Private individuals, even government employees, frequently come into possession of information that, when revealed, could clean up our government or some other corrupt entity. Anonymity is often the only way the information can be revealed in safety and exposure brought about.
