digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bush Administration Attacks "Shield" For Bloggers

news.com.com — The Bush administration on Thursday blasted a congressional proposal that would shield a broad swath of news gatherers, including some bloggers, from revealing their confidential sources.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • drgkstep, on 10/11/2007, -47/+24***** nazi.
    • daspacepirate, on 10/11/2007, -17/+51Hey. Godwin's Law.
    • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -13/+0I am literally staring at the screen. How would he.. Ahh, what the hell..
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -17/+20If reporters aren't expected to reveal their sources, then how exactly are prosecutors supposed to confirm the validity of anything that is reported?

      I seem to recall something in the codes of justice for this country about the accused having a right to face their accusers as well. I'm all for freedom of the press and protecting the rights of free speech for all, but last I checked, having the right to say whatever you felt like saying doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for anything and everything you say, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

      I know that the media these days the media have basically thrown any kind of professionalism out the window in the quest for higher ratings, but unless strictly identified as an OpEd piece, anytime any sort of news is published or broadcast, it is generally accepted as fact. Though it has become lax these days, the news industry has many self imposed controls set up to make sure a story is fact checked beforehand. This is voluntary, but is also expected by the viewers or subscribers of that material. I don't see many bloggers or independent net news agencies doing the same thing if they aren't expected or ordered to, either by the hosting company, the government, or the public.

      As blogs become more and more widespread and popular, this issue is eventually going to come to a head. While I can't say I agree with the wording of the administration, I do understand some of it's concerns from a common sense standpoint. It's going to be interesting to see how this all turns out.
    • Cwo655321, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5"SOME BLOGGERS" that means people that actually release confidential data, not you guys talking about your fscking kitten's eating habits.
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+26If a blogger ACTS like a reporter, and uses confidential sources, he IS a reporter. WTF is so hard about that.
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -12/+10@williamdyer

      Like I already said... reporters have industry controls in place to ensure anything reported is factual, and not slanderous or libelous, while Bloggers do not.

      In other words, it's like the difference between a police officer, and some pissed off guy with a baseball bat. While not every single cop is going to be honest and perfect, there are policies and other organizations tasked with keeping an eye on them, and taking care of the situation if they get out of line. Personally I'd like to see internet providers or website owners get together and come up with their own organization for taking care of these concerns, because I really don't want the government thinking there is one other aspect of our lives they need to protect us from.
    • Drahkar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18@thecash -

      The problem is that the Industry doesn't have those checks and balances. The news media at one point, in the times of Communism Witchhunts, and even Watergate, had an ethical code they attempted to adhere to so that the proper information was given out so that people in government who were doing wrong got punished and helped balance out the system. That's no longer the case. The whole reason that blogging is becoming such a big deal is BECAUSE the fact that mainstream media is no longer unbiased or even accurate. Hell, just recently Fox was slammed for broadcasting a report on Barack Obama that was completely, 100% false. Mainstream media is owned by the corporate Fat Cats and Large Political Parties. They broadcast whatever those groups want to them to broadcast and have absolutely no care on the accuracy or truth of what they broadcast. Why do you think that some bloggers receive more traffic than some news sites? Hell, I know more than a few people who have given up on American Reporting by Mainstream media or Bloggers and rely completely on news broadcast by the BBC! Thats not to say I think that informers should always be given assured anomity. Sometimes its just something that can't be given. But the reason for it is so that information that needs to get out, can get out. Course that doesn't make its use or publication right. But sometimes the information must be given to the public.
    • CogitatorX, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13@thecash -

      "reporters have industry controls in place to ensure anything reported is factual, and not slanderous or libelous"

      That's the funniest ***** I've heard in a while. You really believe that? FOX News regularly slanders and libels but by adding their question mark "?" they convince the herd the lie is true while skirting any legal action

      So how's this?

      "thecash, naive nimrod or ax murderer? More after this break."

      chances are you're neither but when Britt Hume leaves the slack jawed yokels who watch FOX with that tidbit you can be assured a good percentage will go away thinking you're a naive nimrod or ax murderer.
    • ryancalderoni, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3it's almost as though you guys think that there is no terrorism threat

      "The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web," Rachel Brand

      doesn't that make sense to you if they are trying to keep watch for terrorist activity?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -8/+9There is a one word answer to all this, which I've mentioned numerous times on Digg.

      IMPEACH.

      Until you do, Bush will continue to ***** all over you.
    • user777, on 10/11/2007, -7/+7SCREW BUSH MAN !!! Damn, I hate him so much.
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8@cogitatorx

      Um... yeah. I'll see your Brit Hume, and raise you Dan Rather.

      While Fox is hardly unbiased, they do level the mega-news playing field a little, and for that reason alone I give them a pass right now. CNN wasn't refered to as the 'Clinton News Network' in the 90's because of it's habit of criticizing him and his administration, and MSNBC has to go even further into the fringe in order to stand out from CNN. When I tune into the news, I want to hear the facts. I don't need Hannity, Colmes, Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Al Franken, O'Reilley, Mike Moore, or Oprah f*cking Winfrey to tell me how I should feel about the world. I would like nothing more then to see all the mega-news channels go right down the crapper. I could care less about Paris Hilton, and if I want to know how things are going in Iraq, I'll ask my friends who have been there already.

      Even in Alaska, an extremely 'Red" state, media bias is rampant. When the Mark Foley thing went down, the largest newspaper in the state had the story on the front page for five days straight, and it would pop up again every few days for a month. In contrast, when Bill "cold cash" Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts, the story was up for just one day, and burried all the way back on page A9. What made the front page that day? The guy who played The Beav on Leave it to Beaver making a comeback on Broadway.

      Media bias is disgusting, and that I agree with you on. I'm just sad that you don't feel all media bias is disgusting.
    • Drahkar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@thecash -

      Just because the examples and analogies that cogitatorx used were off doesn't make your original statement any less inaccurate. All current Mainstream American Media is biased and corrupt. That is why Bloggers and independent reporters are doing as well as they are. That's why more people watch BBC now than they do CNN. Its a sad state of affairs here in the States that the people are no longer the driving force for the laws, media of government. Large Corporations, special interests and government desire is.

    • trebuchet03, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@thecase

      "If reporters aren't expected to reveal their sources, then how exactly are prosecutors supposed to confirm the validity of anything that is reported?"

      While I'm all for validity and accountability.... I'd rather have a stream of questionable information rather than no information at all. If you have sensitive information that can cost you your reputation, job, etc. and that information is worth getting to the public... Why in the hell would you report it knowing that the person you're telling can't guarantee confidentiality? This is above and beyond media bias -- it's a fundamental part of reporting.

      How does anyone confirm validity? Personally, I start by looking ;)
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@thecash
      If reporters aren't expected to reveal their sources, then how exactly are prosecutors supposed to confirm the validity of anything that is reported?

      I seem to recall something in the codes of justice for this country about the accused having a right to face their accusers as well. I'm all for freedom of the press and protecting the rights of free speech for all, but last I checked, having the right to say whatever you felt like saying doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for anything and everything you say, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.
      "
      >> Um, where is the crime? "The accused?" What sort of crap is this? A reporter cannot protect a source if it entails that person being part of the commission of a crime. But of course, Bush can trump up some *****.

      Why does this administration get the benefit of the doubt? Just because nobody has prosecuted them, doesn't mean they are the biggest robbers, traitors, and crooks in US history.

      It seems to me, some people are just fighting over the position of prison guard in the new world order.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@thecash
      @williamdyer

      Like I already said... reporters have industry controls in place to ensure anything reported is factual, and not slanderous or libelous, while Bloggers do not.
      ...
      "

      >> Wow, what was the editorial process that allowed the press to bother giving the Swift Boaters any airtime? Any due diligence would have shown they weren't even at the events they were quoting.

      What editorial process made anyone think it was news to show Howard Dean going "yeehaw" 2000 times and having commentators go "that's seems scary" during the run-offs?

      What ***** is this, that we have any credibility in the press anymore? Why is it that Progressive bloggers keep coming up with the real scoops, and the MSM keeps getting revealed as "pointless" at best, and in collusion at worst? Obviously, some of you supporters of the notion that bloggers are any less credible than Fox and Friends, just haven't been awake the last few years.
    • avinash240, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@thecash
      The facts are more important than WHO presented the facts. If a source gets a hold of a confidential document that says something fishy is going on, they should be able to hand it off to a blogger without worrying about someone finding out who they are, then it's the blogger's/reporters job to confirm the validity of said information. Ie. confidential report that X Corp dumped waste in X lake, from Mr. Smith, the reporter should go and get water tests from there to back it, get trucking logs, etc..etc..I see nowhere in that chain where the ACTUAL people who coughed up said facts are as important. When someone tells you Bob Smith robbed your house, hands you a video tape of it, and Bobs finger prints from your house, plus photos of Bob with your stuff, the "someone" handing you the stuff is the least of the necessary evidence. The idea that the people matter more than the actual facts and information is what is broken with the media in this country, people believe Oprah(insert X pundit here) because it's Oprah, not because of what she is actually saying.
    • thepompano, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@williamdyer
      If a blogger acts like a reporter and uses confidential sources, he's probably still a commentator and not a reporter.
    • mdhauke, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Great!!! There is no way that Mary and Joe blogger should get the same protections that a professional journalist gets. Bravo GWB, Bravo!!!
  • joklem, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6So, what exactly is wrong with terrorist leaders posting videos on the internet?
    • shinji0402, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4don't forget- they're terrorists! that makes them evil...
    • Influsion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The most important question is: Which bloggers are terrorists and which aren't? Who decides?
  • Newportbeachguy, on 10/11/2007, -15/+14Dude, he's a ***** joke.

    I would be laughing if he wasn't the God damn President.
    • mishabear, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18Instead 70%+ are pissed about it. Why can the Republicans impeach Clinton for a blow job but they can't even seriously investigate the crap that's been going on since before the war started?
    • boobees, on 10/11/2007, -10/+32because that would be Constitutional....
    • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -9/+19@mishabear

      Because Democrats are spineless and weak. If they kept half of their campaign promises during the 2006 election, the political landscape would be much different then it is now.
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -13/+18@mishabear

      Clinton wasn't impeached for getting head, he was impeached for lying under oath, covering up the evidence, ordering aides to cover up other evidence, taking contributions from the Chinese... etc etc etc.

      So maybe Bush lied about the whole WMD thing, but I can't really say that bothers me so much when 80 percent of congress at the time not only lied about the same thing, but supported and footed the bill racked up by Bush's lie. Hell, the speaker of the house herself was recorded saying essentially the exact same things about Iraq, WMD's, and Saddam back in '98 as Bush did in '02. What are ya gonna do?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Impeachment of Bush would reveal too many incriminating facts about certain Democrats who today masquerade as being anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush. Most notably, Hillary Clinton, husband of Bill Clinton. That is why impeachment is practically impossible, unless the people of America finally get off their ass and DEMAND it.
    • CountSessine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Because Democrats want to cooperate, and Republicans just want to win.
    • CountSessine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Bill Clinton was most certainly not impeached for taking contributions from the Chinese, and he lied 'under oath' about something that was completely ridiculous and was never anyone's business to begin with in the first place.

      But technically, you're right. I'll make the correction. Bill Clinton was impeached for *lying under oath* about getting a blowjob.
    • Dominatus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm no Clinton hater or Bush lover. Trust me, but I need to clarify this.

      Clinton was originally on trial because a woman (Paula Jones) accused him of sexual harassment at the work place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton

      During that trial they wanted to establish the character of Clinton, and since the prosecutors knew about Monica, they asked Bill about it. This is where he lied, the question was completely legit.
    • kooft, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"[Bill Clinton] lied 'under oath' about something that was completely ridiculous and was never anyone's business to begin with in the first place."

      The President's ethical standards are not anyones business? If a guy can't keep an oath as simple as being faithful to his wife, how is he going to keep tougher oaths? I don't want a president that's acting like a school boy in a frat house. I want a president that's going to look out for my interests.
    • jonnyq, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"So maybe Bush lied about the whole WMD thing, but I can't really say that bothers me so much when 80 percent of congress at the time not only lied about the same thing, but supported and footed the bill racked up by Bush's lie. Hell, the speaker of the house herself was recorded saying essentially the exact same things about Iraq, WMD's, and Saddam back in '98 as Bush did in '02. What are ya gonna do?"

      For one, you could stop using the word "lie". If EVERYONE said and believed the same thing for 11 years, how can you say Bush, or anyone else "lied"? "lie" requires an intent to mislead. So both Republicans and Democrats were intentionally "misleading" us for 11 years about WMD?

      There are plenty of things wrong with federal government in general right now, but it's not all about Bush. The only reason Bush has less than a 50-60% approval rating is because he's too big of a pussy to do what his own supporters want him to do (stop pussyfooting around the war and get the job done, stop illegal immigration with amnesty, stop bending over every time Harry Reid asks, etc.) It's not because 70% of the country started drinking Michael Moore's kool-aid. There's lot of other reasons.

      I'm all for freedom of the press, but when concealing a source amounts to harboring a criminal or impeding a criminal investigation, or, you know, libel, there have to be checks and balances.
  • Goosemaster, on 10/11/2007, -13/+7This administration is tarnishing our name, a name held sacred to much of the world for so many years....to the brink of no return.


    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6America's name was sacred? Holy cow!
    • TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Uh... dude? We've been the punching bag of the world for many, many years now.

      Back in 1995, my soon to be brother-in-law found that most french people, especially in Paris, were nicer to him if he told them he was Canadian and not American. Seeing how Clinton was in office at the time, you can't exactly blame Bush or the republicans for that.

      Ever since the USSR went kaput, we've been the only big dog left in the world, so of course we're going to take the heat anytime a pile of crap is found in the hallway. Everyone hates those that have it better off then they do... the ugly people hate the pretty people, fat people hate thin people, poor people hate rich people, etc etc. That's life... if we weren't jealous of those who had it better then we did, what the hell would drive us to succeed ourselves? It doesn't have to be mean spirited or anything, just simple, honest longing for what you don't have. Now take that feeling, and put it inside someone who might not have a chance to fulfill those wants, and pretty soon it's going to turn into frustration, and eventual jealous hatred of those who have what you want but take it for granted... at least in their opinion if not in fact.

      In the end, if you're that worried about what the rest of the world thinks about the citizens of the U.S., maybe you should think about volunteering with the peace corps, or some other international volunteer group. Bitching about those you see as giving us a bad name doesn't do a whole hell of a lot to change things at the end of the day, honestly. Feeding some refugees in eastern europe, building some clinics in Africa, or helping treat malnurished children in South America might be a good start though. If you want to be frustrated, fine... just maybe think about putting that frustration towards something more useful then clacking a few keys.
  • brianbennett, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2So what do you bloggers want? Are you the press or aren't you?
    • williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6We do more original reporting than the so-called "press."
  • macabaret, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9Don't you understand? If this legislation passes then the TERRORISTS WIN! (I read it in this online article so it must be true)
  • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Ok, as much as people call articles on digg "spam" the outrage here is funny
  • strictnein, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9What's with all the political stories being posted in the tech areas of digg recently? This is definitely not "Industry News". I have purposely turned off the Politics section so I don't have to see all of these mindless debates and worthless articles.

    And anyways... Anne Broache is a hack. Every single story she and Declan Mcallough (I know I slaughtered his name) write at news.com is along the lines of "Republicans eat puppies!" without ever having any evidence or information that they do, in fact, eat puppies. Like this story. A nameless Department of Justice employee is cited, and then the only other person backing the idea that this "Shield" is a bad idea is a Democrat congressman from California.
  • whatthefu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5There shouldn't be a law protecting them from it, but the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything to those that refuse to reveal their sources. Indeed, the prospect of the government being freely able to weed out anonymous sources would kill anonymous sources altogether, in effect cutting off a portion of information filtered into the news media. This is more than just journalistic ethics.
    • shinji0402, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2People shouldn't knowingly post false information on the internet, but the blogger isn't making people read their work. No law should protect them, but unless it is a major news company, who cares what some person writes on the internet? It's not a trusted news source, and shouldn't be held under the same laws that, say, CNN is held to.
  • soot, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Why would you oppose this measure, Mr. President?

    Is it because you know your lying ass is hated across the whole ***** Internet?
  • MasterThief117, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2First Amendment is nowhere to be seen.
  • Barbrady, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Can somebody show me where it says in the constitution that you have a right to hide your sources.
    • barbobot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Yep, here you go!

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
    • Barbrady, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3barbobot, that says nothing about confidential sources. The fact is that there is no protection for reporters to hide behind informants and there never has been.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The concept of a free press was very dear to the founding fathers.

      Basically, in the preamble they said that whatever the constitution didn't specify was a right of the people, the press and the states.

      Here;
      "
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      "
      source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

      There has been ample support for the estabilishment of a hands off policy towards the press's sources, because once you go after that -- they can't report anymore. It's been more or less an honor system up until now. The press has been given access and afforded some protections -- but yes, not officially. However, if the government does this, then they also break the glass wall that keeps the press from spying on politicians.

      Let''s see who has more to hide. Dick Cheney, or Dan Rather. Let good old Dick, our public servant, reveal who he invited to the energy task force meeting, and Dan Rather can reveal who set him up at CBS. Seems fair.

      >> Anyone who supports Bush's move is a fascist pig -- just one man's opinion.
  • JHB800, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5Have any of you 'tards actually RTFA? It CLEARLY states that the Bush Administration is just one of several entities and individuals to oppose the Law. As a matter of fact, several leading democrats oppose it, a fact ALL of you conveniently left out. Buried as completely Inaccurate.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2and not only that
      but why would you want to protect people who break goverment secrets
      the whole dell fiasco is just a bunch of crude (and maybe some fraud but I am blank as far as that idea goes)
      and this is close to the same thing under different circumstances
      Dell: had a work agreement broke it and most of it that was revealed if not all is just a bunch of stuff for budget minded people
      Bush: stops law protecting snitches from breaking actual laws on confidentiality
      If your going to publicly reveal crap you shouldnt say
      the feds should be after you
      bush didnt make some evil trapmouth anti freespeech action
      he stopped a law protecting lawbreakers via press
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Do you think we're unwilling to admit that there are many Democrats just as guilty as Bush is? Bush would be the best place to *start*, that is why so many are focused on him.

      Impeachment of Bush would eventually lead to incrimination of the Democrats involved in all the crimes that the Bush administration has perpetrated since 9/11.

      The guilt of the Democrats is precisely why they are unwilling to prosecute Bush and have been playing up all their phony "antiwar" sentiment, even though they continue to kow tow to every one of Bush's key demands and continue to make excuses for his crimes.

      There are many in the mainstream media that are also equally guilty. Including some bloggers.

      BUT WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!
    • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"but why would you want to protect people who break goverment secrets"

      Because a government that has the ability to keep secrets is, by default, corrupted.
  • randomdigger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Hiding your source = excuse to make ***** up. 'Nuff said.
  • weebit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I had wanted to prove that everything coming from a Bush mouth was total nonsense. I knew before 9/11 even happened one of the Bush's was under fire along with their White house team about how they was trying their best to get rid of our rights of Freedom of Speech. Funny how this stuff disappears. I believe some of this came out in 1991, other stuff came out later. What ever the case, I would love to prove that Bush is using 9/11 as a excuse, but it not fact. Does anyone know where the old articles stuff is, and can you get your hands on it, and post the goodies in them along with the dates? all I found was pay sites
  • wooties, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2it's called being responsible for your words/actions. .. in today's age, it's needed. ppl make up all sorts of ***** just to get hits to their sites. .. c'mon.. we see this on digg every damn hour.
  • Xspire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well that's the backlash of making ***** up. Oh and digg me down you ***** liberal asses.
  • tyfighter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1blogs are for fags
  • Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Some Republicans said they opposed the bill more broadly because they believed it would give undue protection to anyone who publishes false or irresponsible information."

    What, like Fox News? Surely not. Why, they're as unimpeachable as ... as ....

    Oh, goddamnit, I ruined the joke. I was trying for that crazy bitch who writes logically broken books, is some sort of ultra neo-con, and basicaly lies to her audience.

    That doesn't really narrow it down in the field of neo-con authors... ummm.. she's blonde?
  • otep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4


    .......Clearly, bloggers hate America.


  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I can understand Bush's position here,..

    He has a voice inside his head saying; "What would John Gotti do?"
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uh, I seem to remember the Democrats have been the only ones recently to use political clout to force a real reporter to divulge a source.

    Dug down because these dorky political flame wars do not belong under technology.
  • willgill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1That Fox report on Barack Obama was not "100% false". Here's CNN's version http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ Shockingly, that article and CNN shows its bias in that article. Fox reported he attended a madrassa.
    "Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa."
    So he DID attend a Muslim school but one that maintained traditional Muslim beliefs. Where does CNN show ITS bias. Checkout the poll to the left:
    "Who do you think is behind false reports about Barack Obama's time at a Muslim school?
    Right-wing opponents
    Left-wing opponents"
    Even their own story said he attended a Muslim school.
  • stegre, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2mass control
  • dstz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"The news media at one point, in the times of Communism Witchhunts, and even Watergate, had an ethical code they attempted to adhere to so that the proper information was given out so that people in government who were doing wrong got punished and helped balance out the system"


    Ok, what about mccarthyism? big media know well how to be very complacent with the most horrible things.
  • sporg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Trust me you dont really want to know just how far its gone. Go back to sleep.
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Ive always distrusted stories that say.. sources say.... sources say... sources say.... like 100 times etc.

    There's no way to know someone isn't feeding you a big line of BS. I only TRUST an individual reporter... after they have EARNED my trust. (Whether they work for the Times, a blog or wherever....)
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2Reporters like ABC's John Stossel for instance have "earned my trust", but he's one of the few in big media i do trust. CNN's Lou Dobbs is another...

    These are the type of guys that ask tough questions, in a common sense way... (Whether i agree with them on everything or not is irrelevant, i like their principals)
  • MBX1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Welcome to nazi-america. Bush destroying democracy & usa for real while being a hypocrite and shouting democracy to the world.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@thecash - Its more like they need protection from us, as in we, the people....

    IMHO if a blogger posted that, Senator X has been seen molesting (Lets be fair and withhold the child's name, for the child's protection / future.) Name witheld.
    To support this here is the youtube video (child's face masked) and this is what I captured. Senator does Child in parking lot.....(filthy sure but it happens) The blogger should be allowed to post that since he is the one reporting it. Even if it is Subjudice, he is the one reporting it...

    He should not question why, only that it happened, and only what he saw..

    On the other hand, Senator seen handing CIA documents to X agency and LA cop stands guard while said senator is receiving a sum of money, here is the evidence...Yes its a national security issue, but what if it's a security breach? How is anyone ever going to know unless it is reported? what are you going to ring the cops? the CIA? you could be knocked off for doing so! who can you trust? the answer is, no one! So report it and see where the cards fall and prey they don't fall on your lap, through the dark of night. Should the blogger be protected? yes 100%

    Government is not about secrets, its not about politicians, its about the people, for the people, the problem with the current US thinking is they, the polies, honestly believe they are powerful when the constitution prohibits it! Understand? this is coming from an Aussie who knows the US constitution sometimes better than Americans!
  • flaterates, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The important thing all of you are failing to pick up on is that, in the United States, it is really important to insure that no one tells the truth unless it is being paid for by the same people that are paying our corrupt leaders. Bloggers should get an offshore account, with a provider that does not keep logs.
  • waffleninja, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Do as I say, not as I do. The Bush administration is NOTORIOUS for not revealing their sources. "I don't recall that meeting, person, etc., etc." Even watching the Federal Electoral Commission hearings on C-SPAN, when Bush's nominee was asked a touch question he didn't answer much of it because it was "privileged information." Now people on the internet have to reveal sources, when government officials responsible for maintaining the rights of the American people don't have to do anything. Yeah, okay.
  • MaceSoul, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"WASHINGTON--The Bush administration on Thursday >>blasted
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.