novak bs

you'll be relieved to know this isn't really about bob novak.

it's about how journalists in general appear to be ethically challenged and too easily diverted from what matters.

i've listened to an awful lot of discussions on the outing of "wilson's wife." (btw, i'll be extremely surprised if the grand jury says that isn't legally the same as saying her name.)

almost every journalist i've heard says they must protect confidential sources so the sources will keep coming to them.

well that might be a pragmatic argument, but it's not an ethical one.

the ethical argument favoring maintenance of confidentiality is that it can protect sources from reprisals.

the plame case stands that on its head. joe wilson was a whistleblower acting in the public interest. novak's sources were in no danger of retaliation. they, in fact, were punishing wilson. protecting their identities is a 180 from the valid justification for journalistic privilege.

as the controversy goes on, it gets more mixed up. bushers, including novak, keep implying wilson lied about who sent him to niger.

it's a smoke screen, a diversionary tactic, disinformation. it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT who sent him.

but journalists have been completely taken in. they say plame was outed to "discredit" wilson by revealing that his wife was responsible for his niger trip.

huh? how would that discredit him? he was obviously as qualified for the job as anyone could be, so WHO CARES who sent him?

WHEN are you idiots gonna WAKE UP?