July 7, 2005

        First off, I'm not going to talk about the legality of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV,'s wife, Valerie Plame,'s illegal actions being ratted out the way Nixon's lawbreakers were ratted out. Just looking at the preceding sentence hurts my eyes and shows how tortuous it is just to be IN D.C. No wonder they have to pay people exorbitant salaries just to work there. I've often wondered if it was an offense before God Almighty just to travel through Georgetown, much less D.C. ¿Quién sabe?

        What I want to address is the subject of sources and protecting sources and reporters and reputation.

        No matter how rich or poor a reporter may be, all he or she has, in the end, is a reputation.

        And it's not even the public reputation that matters most. The public reputation eventually comes when things a reporter reports on is proven true enough times - this surely is important, but not nearly as important as the "other" reputation.

        The private reputation. This is reputation a reporter has among his sources. There is no more sacred bond between a reporter's source and a reporter. Without it, you're just doing feature stories.

        Now, mind you, there's nothing wrong with being a feature story reporter, or a sports reporter, or a movie critic or a political pundit. They are all unique and important parts of news. But to any reporter, investigative work is the golden ring. Getting a story that's big, getting it right, and getting it first, is the Holy Grail. It comes much more infrequently than some reporters would like you to believe.

        OK, so reporting a story big and first is important. But who, in their right mind, would trust anybody in this day and age with a story of such import? Who? Only those who are secure enough or powerful enough can afford to come out into the open. Usually, they are so mixed up in things that to give away such secrets would be signing their own symbolic death warrant.

        Or..

        People who can be assured that they will not be ratted out. That means no names.

        You can posture all you like about the importance of reliable nameable sources, but the fact is that, here in the real world, people don't give a tiny rat poo about honor or doing the right thing. Usually the source wants to hurt somebody. This means that they have no trouble lying about what happened, or leaving out something important which makes the story less true.

        A good reporter will check with at least two sources to make sure the story has a reasonable chance of being true. And, generally, this second source is always an "unnamed source." Again, no names. The story is undeniable. It's got a big effect - "legs" as some of us call it - enough to make several stories out of it.

        Once you get these kinds of sources, you can find out almost anything about that particular organization. You also know that your source would be ruined if their identity came to light. So you never, never, never tell.

        We are told that Time magazine's Matt Cooper and The NY Times' Judith Miller are this kind reporter. A "good" reporter as Jeff Birnbaum would call them.

        Yesterday, Matt's source gave him permission to tell. Matt is safe from jail. But it looks as if Judith will be heading to the huisgow.

        But, WHY?

        Well, it's because of the two irreconcilable forces of nature - the irresistible force and the immovable object. Take your pick.

        The law needs names and places because it cannot establish, without a shadow of a doubt, things that are illegal. And, yes, it's lazy-man's way. Unimaginative, unproductive, or just plain lazy flatfoots, mouthpieces, and judges want the reporter to "roll over" on a source, so they don't have to do the same footwork themselves. And let's make no mistake; they HAVE the legal right to do it. It may be immoral, it may be piggish, it may be truant. But it IS legal. They are, if you will, the irresistible force.

        On the other hand, because of the 1st & 5th amendments, a reporter does not HAVE to tell the judge anything. It may be immoral, it may be piggish, it may be truant. But it is the reporter's right to remain silent - the immovable object.

        Now comes the hard part:

        Just as the legal system would have to sacrifice without the knowledge the reporter has, the reporter must sacrifice to maintain the silence. Remember that ALL the reporter has, IF HE OR SHE IS TO BE A REPORTER, is private reputation.

        So, it is fair to say that it is the reporter's right and duty to get fired or go to jail or whatever it takes, to maintain confidence of a source. Just as it is the judicial system's right and duty to do what it needs to do, within the bonds of the constitution, to get the information for clarity of the law.

        I have written all of the above, just so I can say the following:

        Would all you pigs in the media just shut up. Please? What's happening on BOTH sides is fair. It's expected. It's what makes our constitution work. And for BOTH sides, it's the RIGHT thing to do! It's the dang Judge's job to do what he's doing. And just as assuredly it's the reporter's job to do what she's doing. BY GOING TO JAIL, SHE IS DOING HER JOB AND LIVING UP TO HER HIGHEST ASPECTS AS A REPORTER. OK?

        Good.

        Now, lets go have a beer and see what's on TV.