by heath7 » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:07 pm
This boggles the mind.<br><br>They didn't have the press hogtied enough? Now reporters can't report because of liability?!<br><br>I'm reminded of a man Bush appointed to some office of governmental oversight, whose job is to review government whistleblower claims, and how this man has invalidated all of 'em. These whistleblowers were trying to let us know. Since their claims were squashed by the govenment they could go to the press, but now that's illegal and the press won't face the liability.<br><br>The courts have served we the people by destroying the press. We can speculate on our weblogs all we want, but that ain't free press. Free press is being open to the inner workings of our servant government. When they destroy that, then what are we to expect from such a hostile autocracy. I can imagine no remotely benign scenarios that deem such disconnection between the people and the state.<br><br>... This editor for the Plain Dealer holds out hope for publishing these 'profound' stories, and so do I. However, if the Plain Dealer is holding onto these stories, then many other outlets probably are as well, and if none of them can conjure the will to print them, what are we to believe is going to change their minds. Its all excuses and no action. This editor is trying to appear as some sort of hero, but he's just a chickenshit.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>