The July 27 post is the introduction to today's post.
Last week G.B. Trudeau in his Doonesbury strip clearly states that Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA agent. He has declared himself judge and jury. Other similar minded Democrats have demanded that Mr. Rove either resign or be fired. None of them seem to understand or want to follow the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Even if five different reporters claim that Mr. Rove was the tipster, does that make him guilty? No, not until he is convicted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the basis of our legal system! Is there any libertine Democrat out there who understands this basic concept?
We all know that reporters have been known to lie! Consider this. If all it takes is an accusation from a reporter to get an administrative official fired, all a reporter has to do is falsely claim that illegal information came from that particular individual. Do you really want our government to operate under these circumstances?
I've got another concern. I have not seen this addressed in the media although it may have been. If it is illegal for a government official to give the name of a CIA agent and it should be, doesn't the reporter and the newspaper or magazine have a moral obligation NOT to publish that information? Doesn't the publishing of that name for the world to see endanger the life of the agent just as much if not more than telling that name to a reporter? Freedom of the press is not and never has been unfettered--it is not an absolute freedom.
Yet, I have not seen or heard of any demand that any reporter resign for risking the life of the agent. I have not seen or heard of any demand that any newspaper, magazine, or its staff be punished for printing the story. They morally have to be culpable just as the administrative or other individual who originally gave the name to the reporter is culpable. They could and should have decided not to print the name of the agent. They did not. Where is the moral outrage?
Finally, we need to stop placing such undeserved value on the anonymous source or the ubiquitous "high placed official." If an individual is not willing to be publicly named, how do we know he is even in the position to know the given information? How do we judge the reliability of the information? How do we know that the information hasn't been fabricated by the reporter? We can't!
Last week G.B. Trudeau in his Doonesbury strip clearly states that Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA agent. He has declared himself judge and jury. Other similar minded Democrats have demanded that Mr. Rove either resign or be fired. None of them seem to understand or want to follow the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Even if five different reporters claim that Mr. Rove was the tipster, does that make him guilty? No, not until he is convicted in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is the basis of our legal system! Is there any libertine Democrat out there who understands this basic concept?
We all know that reporters have been known to lie! Consider this. If all it takes is an accusation from a reporter to get an administrative official fired, all a reporter has to do is falsely claim that illegal information came from that particular individual. Do you really want our government to operate under these circumstances?
I've got another concern. I have not seen this addressed in the media although it may have been. If it is illegal for a government official to give the name of a CIA agent and it should be, doesn't the reporter and the newspaper or magazine have a moral obligation NOT to publish that information? Doesn't the publishing of that name for the world to see endanger the life of the agent just as much if not more than telling that name to a reporter? Freedom of the press is not and never has been unfettered--it is not an absolute freedom.
Yet, I have not seen or heard of any demand that any reporter resign for risking the life of the agent. I have not seen or heard of any demand that any newspaper, magazine, or its staff be punished for printing the story. They morally have to be culpable just as the administrative or other individual who originally gave the name to the reporter is culpable. They could and should have decided not to print the name of the agent. They did not. Where is the moral outrage?
Finally, we need to stop placing such undeserved value on the anonymous source or the ubiquitous "high placed official." If an individual is not willing to be publicly named, how do we know he is even in the position to know the given information? How do we judge the reliability of the information? How do we know that the information hasn't been fabricated by the reporter? We can't!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home