<H4>How many ways can Drum get source protection wrong?</H4>

Kevin Drum has offered up his latest pontification about Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and protection of anonymous sources.

He continues to come dangerously close to an absolutist interpretation of shield laws and related issues, and is simply wrong.

Of course, other name bloggers like Kos and Atrios have already pointed this out.

Now, he may claim he’s not making absolutist claims, but he’s getting much closer than either of the two above, or than many editors would — as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald himself pointed out in court pleadings.

Oh, and a shield law is just a bit lower down the rung of principles than the First or Fifth amendments.

Kevin, if you were a reporter, with your quite high standards on this subject, Karl Rove would use you like a two-dollar whore, I believe.

The bottom line? Stop putting reporters on pedestals.

Oh, and speaking of that, as for the rest of your long post, Mr. Drum —

Matt Cooper ought to quit acting and get off his fricking pity pot. Oh, Matt, and while you're doing that, stop taking yourself so fricking serious.

That goes in spades for “Judy, Judy.” Seeing as how Miller was essentially a propagandist for the last two years, and may have back-fed information to Rove, both she and her source have damn good reason to keep her quiet. SHE might have a more serious criminal collar facing her for all we know, if what the Post reported Wednesday morning is true.

Follow-up note:

This AP story totally blows its coverage of the issues at stake, and assumes reporters, sources and the theoretically more educated part of the general public would be clueless to distinguish between good and bad sources, helpfulness and “using” somebody, etc. (the same things that Kevin seems clueless about and to imply others would be clueless).

Will the jailing of New York Times reporter Judy Miller scare people off from risking careers to tell reporters about government misdeeds? Or will Miller's willingness to sit behind bars rather than name a confidential source embolden such whistleblowers?

Can you misread the issue any worse without doing so deliberately, which I suspect Michael J. Sniffen did anyway?