>>I agree with you that not everything journalists learn should be published. So do the editors and publishers of reputable media. Not sure this story fits in the category of national secrets. Like it or not, this administration's history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling is probably a factor in the news media opting to report more of what they do rather than less. Someone needs to tell us the truth.
>
>
>There we disagree. It's a subjective opinion whether the administration has a history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling and, therefore, doesn't rise to the level of objective news, IMHO, which is a core tenet of journalism. I mean, c'mon, Mike, you're saying that the media is honor-bound to "save" us from Bush. That's not right.

Seems to me a free press that's willing to publish things the government doesn't want us to know is one of the strongest defenses of our freedom. Yeah, they'll get it wrong sometimes and publish things they shouldn't, but I sure wouldn't want the rule to be no publishing "government secrets."

>I have to, stringently, disagree with that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that Hersh followed the "three sources" rule before writing. If there are three government sources willing to leak classified ops to a reporter then we are in deep kimchee.

I don't think the rule is three sources, but two independent sources. But I've never been a journalist, so I could be wrong.

>I think the mantra should be "could people get killed by publishing this". If the answer is "yes", then the huge temptation to embarrass Bush should be put aside. That's what, apparently, they couldn't bring themselves to do.

What if people could get killed either way? Seems to me that's true of the current case. If this administration pulls us into war in Iran, lots of people will die.

Tamar