tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post5552992277779751941..comments2011-07-08T13:03:42.327-05:00Comments on Political Argument: Protection for Journalists Protecting Confidential SourcesWayne BThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15343455979104443636noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post-6752855974072588932007-03-12T22:39:00.000-05:002007-03-12T22:39:00.000-05:00While journalistic integrity is certainly a worthy...While journalistic integrity is certainly a worthy objective to protect, I think you're being far too naive about the intentions of some of these "confidential sources." After all, the current Valerie Plame case is all about leaks, and whether these leaks compromised national security. Obviously, the original plan to orchestrate the leak was motivated at least in part by the assumption that the leaker could remain anonymous. In this case, revealing the journalists' sources was crucial to establishing whether or not there was wrongdoing.<BR/><BR/>The anonymous source is far from always an altruistic whistleblower seeking to out some deep wrong all the while at great personal risk. Deep Throats are not the norm. What you see far more often are newspaper articles citing "high-ranking adminstration officals" or "unnamed Pentagon sources" that criticize the current hot topic. These people aren't trying to inform the public or monitor their own government. These are usually internal office power plays, staffers who wanna feel big and important by leaking something juicy to reporters, whether it's true or not. Or maybe it's just part of your standard Washington intrigue, one group or interest selfishly seeking to undermine another by leaking something damaging, with none of your noble goals of justice in mind.WYDIWYGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683667356982779448noreply@blogger.com