More Politics

Yesterday on NPR (on "On the Media") someone interviewed the editor of an Ohio-based newspaper. The editor explained how he had chosen to not print certain information relating to the latest Washington fiasco and became extremely "offended" and agitated when the interviewer asked him why he had "withheld" information. The man then launched into a diatribe about how "you outsders don't have a clue about any of this".

Fine, I'm an outsider and maybe I -don't- have a clue. But the interview did show him for the jackass that he is. I do understand the point he's making (i.e. that the media is now afraid of exercising freedom of press considering that a New York times reporter is sitting in jail for not revealing her source). He claimed he had been called a "coward" in over 200 e-mails after he published a column ironically revealing that he -had- in fact withheld information. I don't even know what the information was about, but those 200 e-mails would appear to be right. You're just submitting to the thing that you're trying to prevent. Get some balls, man, and print the information. That's what the Supreme Court is for (although that will probably change by September).

Lawyers and doctors have patient/client privilege and (according to Ed...not that he's an -expert- in this stuff) are "learned professions". It seems journalists want this priilege as well (see New York Times journalist sitting in jail). The right to privacy is NOT provided for in the Constitution. This, aside from the fear of assasination, is the reason Mark Felt remained more or less the anonymous Deep Throat for 30 years. He *knew* no one could provide for his privacy (or more importantly his safety) and thus took steps *himself* to remain anonymous (and obviously did a pretty damn good job). Add to this the fact that I generally don't have much respect for journalists (aside from Jill's mom) as it is (Yes, I'm going to out this CIA operative because the public demands the truth, not because it will make me look good and get me more money!) and I can't say I have any sympathy for the poor Ohio editor. The New York times reporter was protecting KARL ROVE! Let's start with the fact that Rove broke the law in giving such information to the reporter. Second, it's not like Rove was a random Joe on the street--he's a White House insider who presumably did this because the operative's husband was a vocal opponant of the administration. The man doesn't *deserve* confidentiality! Why in God's name would you protect him? Because you think Freedom of the Press demands it?! How in any way, shape or form is any of that logical?!

When I found out about the Rove leak, all I could do is shake my head. Because for all the corruption that happened (is happening) behind closed doors, this is corruption that is now unabashedly out in the open and in our faces. Nothing will ever happen to Rove. Bush repeatedly stated that the leak would be punished, and that he is "a man of his word".

I wonder what that word is.