Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Watergate Reporters Argue for Anonymity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 09:57 PM
Original message
Watergate Reporters Argue for Anonymity
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -

Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who broke the Watergate conspiracy story with, perhaps, the most famous source in journalism history, said Monday it's especially important to protect such sources now.

During a rare joint appearance, the duo told an audience at Harvard University they were concerned about prosecutors going after reporters and their sources, citing the investigation into the leak of a CIA analyst's identity.

"It is a really bad thing, for journalism, for the country. You will dry up the real story of what is going on in government," Woodward said.

Several reporters were subpoenaed to testify in the investigation into the disclosure of the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/dec/05/120506458.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
newscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. What's really a bad thing is advocating for your source.
It should get you thrown in prison. They used to call it propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. ISn't the Plame case different from Watergate?
In the Watergate story, the snitch was not involved in the crimes! He was a whistle blower.

In the Plame case, the reporters are actually complicit in the crime!

Isn't that completely different in the eyes of the law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Exactly!
I have no problem with reporters protecting their whistle-blower sources ... but they can't use the "protecting my source" argument when they are participating in the criminal activity themselves! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. Then of course there is the issue
of protecting your source for giving you information concerning the government.

It's quite a different matter when that source is only providing you with gossip.

Isn't that what a lot of the "reporters" were saying about the leak, "It was only idle gossip, everyone knew Valerie Wilson was CIA."?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkiGuy Donating Member (451 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. also bad to ridicule the prosecuter
Is Woodward willing to do 5-10 to protect his source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. "rare joint appearance"
Yes, If I was Bernstein, I wouldn't want to be seen in public with Woodward either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrfk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. is there some reason that reporters don't use phoney names
when writing about issues that might
interest a nosey prosecutor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I suspect because that would be a lie.
There's a difference between not identifying your source by name, and naming a false source. A made-up name would be a false source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrfk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. why, people use pseudonyms all the time
if an article is by-lined 'Mr.X' ,
do you consider that somehow deceitful?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. You have to remember, the people that are in the middle of this
are supposed to be "reporters"! I think that's the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfkrfk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I don't recognise any special authority or responsibility...
just because someone claims to be a reporter.

by the way, I don't like the situation where reporters
try to become news issues as themselves,
but I can't do anything about that.

Coast to Coast AM, is on in a few minutes,
I trust their ''''''reporters'''''' about as much
as any others
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
11. Woodward has not told the real story of what's going on...
in government for a long time. He's too busy carrying water for his Republican friends in Washington, and enjoying his status as their favorite celebrity reporter.

Bernstein should not be associating with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. let me get this right
the source "leaks" something to the press.

Then the "source" quotes the press as an original source...

Do I have this right????

Please tell me if not......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The White Tree Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
14. That seems absolutely wrong.
Maybe he needs to learn how to be a journalist again. What he seems to be saying is that this is going to make it more risky for people to leak information in the future. I think that might not be a bad thing. Whistle blowers and leakers should be doing so because they feel what they are doing is important and right for the country and be willing to accept the consequences if they are found out (at least that would be the prototypical idea of a person leaking info). Leakers shouldn't be able to do so with impugnity and an air of the casual. If their leaks have consequences on other peoples lives they need to be responsable for those leaks. The idea that he is proposing is what caused all the problem in the first place, the cozy relationship the press has with the administration leads many to beleive that they can use leaking as a tool and a means to and end to foment change within government or to influence peoples perception of it.

It would be better to just have more open government with less of a need for leaks and responsable journalism that covers government and holds it accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plasticsundance Donating Member (786 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
15. Me thinks I smell the scent of desperation
Edited on Tue Dec-06-05 08:58 AM by plasticsundance
The answer's no, Bob.

The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.

Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7&rnd=1132253345109&has-player=false">The Man Who Sold the War

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. Oh, no! Call the WAAAmbulance!
>they were concerned about prosecutors going after reporters and their sources,<

Wow, Bob just doesn't learn, does he? Was he repeatedly dropped on his head as a child?

Bob, I have some advice for you: Mess with the bull, get the horn. Here's some more advice: Don't play word games with federal prosecutors.

>"It is a really bad thing, for journalism, for the country."<

I believe the operative word in that sentence is "journalism," which Bob has not had even a passing familiarity with for quite some time now...

This story just keeps getting better. :woohoo:

Julie
president for life of the PFEB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. Reporters protecting the * cabal and calling them sources
is ludicrous! They (this mis-administration) are so called public servants and we the people have the right to know the who, what, where, when and why of everything they do. Reporters are suppose to report the news not be a judge of who they should protect. They way reporters have been doing their (protect the source reporting) is exactly why we have an uninformed public today. The only place you can get any kind of a true story today is certainly not from MSM reporters. Yeah, reporters have been doing a great job of reporting and this so called protect there public officials sources thing has worked splendidly!:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC