Friday, January 06, 2006
very good point that a reporter accused of improper behavior had no business covering the trial where the truthfullness of the journalist's accuser was at issue... in Patterico's words, "(the reporter) simply had too much of a vested interest in portraying a crucial plaintiff's witness's pretrial statements as incredible..".
Sure seems like a good standard for me. Once a journalist has been accused of improper/criminal activity, it only makes sense that they not be allowed to cover a story where their accuser plays a part. Even the NYT would seem to agree with this, as evidenced by their pulled Judith Miller off the Iraq/WMD beat once questions arose over her pre-war reporting.
Well, by that standard, the NYT ought to halt their coverage of the NSA monitoring programs, now that they've been accused by Powerline of having broken the law with their story on those programs.
Anybody want to guess on the likelihood of that happening?