Bill could authorize prosecution for mentioning administration wiretapping

This says that you can be punished for releasing compromising details about investigations etc. That sounds very reasonable, and therefore, likely to pass. That it's built upon existing rules makes it even more 'common sense'.

Is it going to be used to discourage those who write general articles or voice concerns about the practice without divulging anything of a compromising nature? That's something we can't know yet, but sounds like a great way to go about silencing critics of surveilance programs.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Where does one go to find a list of which news organizations are well respected as opposed to those that are not? With names like Washington Post and Abc News, they sound all, legit and stuff. I'd love (relatively) non-partisan resource to determine that kind of thing. Thanks.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Minion

BBC News or any piece of British Journalism is your best bet.

The New York Times, however, is the most bias respected new source on the planet.

Thanks, I know BBC is generally accepted as a source. But I was hoping that someone would have a list of American sources that were acceptable in PP. Since New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, Fox, have all been discounted. Or is it just that *no* local news source is good enough for such issues?

My issue is that these sources are thrown out, therefore their claims needn't be looked into, because it was a 'bad' source.

@Bigblah, of course there is bias, and this is not an attempt to bait anyone into such an argument. I was hoping on the off chance that there would be a group which lists credible sources for both (all?) sides of the US political spectrum. Or if it really is as it appears, and that any source which doesn't agree with one's view is 'not respected' as a news agency.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.