So, I ask the collected media here: is it not the responsibility of these contacted journalists to divulge the names of those who broke the law? What journalistic maxim is being protected here? This is not the Pentagon Papers. This is not someone risking their career to tell the media of something that the public needs to know. As best I can tell from the current reporting, this was an act of pure spite. acted out against Joe Wilson, with the intent to deter future people from revealing information deleterious to the administration. Is the idea of protecting one's sources so mindlessly adhered to that we cannot distinguish between the beneficial and the malevolent? Is it not time for a reassessment of the anonymous source when the media is being used as a tool of intimidation? A crime has been committed here, that is clear. There are at least six people who know who did it. It is, I thought, the job of the media to inform the public, not to protect lawbreakers in our government. What do others think?"

[more]