valerie plame was an undercover cia agent, and her identity was leaked after her husband had debunked the administration's claim that saddam hussein was seeking nuclear material this africa. in africa. the court refused to hear the case in 2005 and left miller in jail. that was a big story because everybody had anticipated that the court would clarify and needed to clarify the extent to which reporters are able to protect their confidential sources. but in the miller case it was a disi ponte -- disappointing nondecision, just a refusal to take the case. the only case that the court has ever decided on this issue was another one that i worked on the losing side of, and that was back in 1972 and involved earl caldwell, a reporter for "the new york times" who covered the black panther party. and did all the times' coverage of the black panther or party. the court in the caldwell case decided that reporters had to appear before a grand jury who were investigating something about the, about the black an they are party -- panther party, and the reporters had to testify like any other citize

to me reminds me of the valerie plame flap, disproportionate primarily driven by politics.specially the coverage in the united states. the new york times the other day had two front page side by side lengthy stories about something going on in britain. to do that otherwise, you would need the queen to abdicate and the plague to hit london. clearly there's a political agenda at work here. >> the testimony from the murdoches and the testimony from rebecca brooks, coverage as we said, both, here in the states and of course in the u.k. all the cable news networks on fox, on it in its entirety, no commercial breaks. do you think that the coverage was warranted, was it fair? >> was the coverage important in that it's the most important thing going on in the world, it's not. rupert murdoch and a lot of people have a lot of interest in it, yes. people want to see is this the thing that takes rupert murdoch down and you see this idea that somehow they're going to prove something that happened in this one isolated incident is actually happening everywhere else. that's what the covera

the news media since the saga of who in the bush administration leaked what to whom about valerie plblame - plame wilson. and, it is a truly terrible time for that show to have employed the otherwise fascinating device called "behind the breaks," an online video stream showing what everyone on the show talks about during the commercial breaks. here is a "behind the breaks" reality moment from the july 9th edition of the show. it begins with allen kohns asking cal thomas a question we all knew the answer to already. >> cal short for calvin? >> yes, it is. >> your name is -- your calvin would be your -- >> that's my middle name, yes. >> what's your first name? >> john. i was named after coolidge's sons. >> why did you go with cal rather than john? >> i wanted to identify with the cal ripken jr. >> okay, so that is a great example of what you could learn during a talkative commercial break. i knew cal was short for calvin but didn't know calvin was actually cal thomas' middle name, didn't know he was named after coolidge's two sons and i didn't know that cal thomas doesn't know why he calls himself

grief president obama and members of his administration particularly because of dick cheney over valerie plame dams because they shot she was leakedded as a c.i.a. operative but the left has two sets of rules, one pore republicans and one for themselves. it is okay if wikileaks does it, but if someone on the right were to do it, no, that would be an absolute 'rage. >> and the argument of downism that they are providing journalism and the american people have the right to know? remember, they are the ones who offered to pay for an iphone to "out" the iphone 4 and they got all kinds of heat and an f.b.i. investigation. >>governor huckabee: doesn't their name say it all "gawker," is that who you want to buy to your son's birthday party, a gawker, they look through your window at night when the shades are closed and looking for a crack. does a person have a right to walk the sidewalk? yes. but to slip-up to your window and look for a little bit of light through your shade? no. that is where they is crossed the line. and gawker has. >>dave: the associated press may have had a hand in getting this r