Controversy Over Confidential Sources

Re “An Exchange on Reporters and Their Confidential Sources,” Commentary, Oct. 20: In the ongoing debate over whether a New York Times reporter should be forced to divulge her sources, there is one obvious question I have never seen asked of those who support disclosure, such as Michael Kinsley. If the information is so vital, why is the prosecutor conducting a fishing expedition against a reporter who may (or may not) have talked to the source of the leak, rather than compelling Robert Novak to divulge his source? After all, he is the one who published the leak and who therefore beyond a doubt knows who it is.

If disclosure is vital to the security of the republic, he is the one, if any, who should be compelled to suffer the consequences to his reputation with sources. So why, Mr. Kinsley, should the New York Times be put on the spot?

Lee Aydelotte

Huntington Beach

*

Though I wholeheartedly agree with journalists’ need to protect confidential sources in order to effectively do their jobs, Judith Miller of the New York Times has proved herself to be a reliable pawn of Ahmad Chalabi and the Bush administration. Protecting the public interest? Please.

Linda Cordeiro

Los Angeles