Comments on: Time Magazine to Hand Over Plame Notes

By: Barbara Campbell

Barbara Campbell — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 13:22:55 +0000

Thanks for posting the article on Time's decision to disclose the source of the Valerie Plame leak. However, I found the anti-liberal messages on your site unprofessional and offensive. Who benefits from deliberate divisiveness? Those who need enemies to survive?

By: Arguing with signposts… » Pearlstine on Rose show

Arguing with signposts… » Pearlstine on Rose show — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 04:11:06 +0000

[...] Rose was obviously not happy with Pearlstine’s decision to turn over notes from Time’s story on the Valerie Plame affair, and grilled Perlstine about it over and over. [...]

By: bryan

bryan — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:38:17 +0000

Actually, journalistic shield laws are incredibly weak. I was surprised in my graduate media law class when we discussed the topic. And thinking about it, there's good reason. The overheated rhetoric about "limiting press freedom" doesn't do anything to address the legitimate concerns raised in the case.

By: Jim Rhoads

Jim Rhoads — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:30:14 +0000

I noticed earlier in the day that the NYT has expressed its displeasure in Time's decision. This is ironic in some ways since the NYT has been a prime mover in trying to minimize the reaches of Executive Privilege over the years. Now that the reaches of Reporter's privilege has been pretty much settled, it seems to me Time's approach is the more responsible one.

By: Mark in Mexico

Mark in Mexico — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:03:29 +0000

Because it is the LAW

I was taught that the state of individuals or private institutions making their own custom laws at whatever point satisfied their personal needs was called anarchy.
This is what you are suggesting and it is not right.