Real Journos Repelled by RUSSERT's "hiding behind bosses" (PLAME testimony

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/ethics_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000856554

(April 01, 2005) -- It's time for Tim Russert to meet the press. It's time for the host of NBC's long-running, Sunday morning interview program to stop hiding behind his bosses and start talking. It's time for him to answer questions about his secret testimony, delivered under oath in the Valerie Plame CIA-leak case.

It's long past time for Russert to explain why he testified last August and then remained a high-profile member of an organization founded 35 years ago to keep reporters away from subpoena-toting prosecutors. That organization, The Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press, is a leader in the legal fight to stop special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's crusade to catch The CIA Leaker and jail any reporter who resists him.

Russert's secret testimony has become a quiet embarrassment to the members of the Reporters Committee, whose members have until now kept their opinions to themselves. Russert's willingness to answer Fitzgerald's questions is astounding because he is a member of the RCFP steering committee along with Earl Caldwell, the former New York Times reporter whose refusal to obey a Nixon Administration subpoena was the motivating force behind the committee's formation.

"I was stunned when I found out that Russert testified," said Caldwell, now an endowed professor at The Scripps Howard School of Journalism and Communication at Hampton University in Virginia. "A guy like Tim Russert, he should know better. But he didn't come out of journalism, he comes out of politics. Maybe he sees things another way." ....

What does Russert say about that? He is standing behind his corporate leaders, who issued a statement through Barbara Levin, communications director for NBC News, that read, in part: "Tim Russert is a stalwart supporter of the right to gather news, unfettered by government interference or inquiries."

********UNQUOTE*******

the most telling part I believe is..

---
David Kidwell, a Miami Herald reporter who was once jailed to avoid testifying before a grand jury, said the four reporters compromised all journalists by testifying. "When reporters cut deals, when they rationalize themselves by testifying, they are acting as a government snitch," he said. "We are supposed to be policing the government, not allowing ourselves to be co-opted by it." He said the case also confuses the public: "What is a judge to think when Russert and the others have said that principles are not that important?"
---

I think in this case at least, not testify is the way of being co-opted by the government. When the Justice Department is investigating the White House, the Justice Department is the little guy.
Now Russert's case is a bit different than Novak or someone else who was originally approached with the leaking, because if what they say is true they want to know about conversations he had with Scooter Libby after the leak. In this case, because Libby was having chats with lots of reporters after the investigationstarted, he could have been lying to them in hopes a few would testify and mislead the investigation. Either way its an interesting case as to whether or not a reporter should be revealing information at all. I do believe there are cases when they should, such as the people who were used by the White House to punish Wilson.

Now it's being invoked to protect abuse of power by govt officials - the oppositve, in fact, of its purpose. There is a traitor in the White House. I don't see why that deserves 1st Amendment protection, unless, as you point out, the reporters have been co-opted by govt, in which case they are no longer journalists but propagandists. Does propaganda have 1st Amendment protection too? I know the radical right would argue that it does!

He's Dick Cheney's bitch - plain and simple.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

I wasn't aware of Russert being under scrutiny

valid arguement for protecting one's sources. This is criminal.
Period. Our elected officials are not doing their job, apparently out of fear.

It is a sad, sad, state of affairs. I'm sure our "founding fathers" are rolling and rolling some more in their graves and are looking down upon this nation, from wherever they might be and are crying.

They are saying we tried! We gave them them the blueprint, what happened?

Ah, yes, we made corporations people.

www.reclaimdemocracy.org

journalists. He has threatened them all!

I'd love to see some real journalism on real TV!!!!!!!