Great question! And pretty much open to opinion. Depends on the editor's politics and intestinal (testosteronal) fortitude. Also very much depends on the political climate. Under the present regime, I doubt many reputable sources would do it unless it would benefit the White House. On the other hand, a less reputable tabloid might do it to push sales - the more inflammatory the better. Thing is, you're chancing everything from unemployment to jail to suspiscious loss of life or worse (most realistically loss of the job and/or career, financial loss, or incarceration). A junior editor might try to grease it past a senior editor for pole position. I think that's the way I'd push it. Junior editor trying to make his mark bypasses the system to spring the story. Sound reasonable? Or the senior editor sets himself up to use the ambitious youngster as fallguy.

     I really like the junior editor nuance/angle, very astute--but are you really telling me you believe any of the Big 3 networks or major metro newspaper would sit on a story because it might make the White House look bad?

The media hates Bush (maybe for good reason, maybe not, that's not the point) and NBC just ran a story about on-going covert ops in Iran. Seems like any news paper that could get their hands on a Karl Rove+Haliburton-employee-share-hooker-who turns-out-to-be-a-russian-mafia-stringer-story (if you will , for example) would run with it.

I'm not necessairly trying to argue, it's only that the implication that the American press is somehow in the White House's pocket hit me from left field.

But in all seriousness, adding a hungry junior editor willing to push it past the Powers That Be is a nice twist.

I think the press has run rabid in war time.

I'm from Nevada and I voted for Harry Reid[*] so I'm pretty left but you seem to have had too many lunches with Michael Moore . (Just poking you with the semi-sharp stick of my underdeployed wit.)

MINK+junior editor=good thought fodder.

[* in other news: upon hearing about attempted terror attacks on U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix Senator Harry Reid called for an immediate redeployment of all troops out of the region] 

That's okay. I'm no expert anyway. I didn't even stay at a Lollygag Express last night (with or without aforementioned hooker).

No matter what they said in the news.

And I recently claimed to be an editor only by claim of holding that job title. Otherwise I'm just a writer painting mustaches on others' prose.

Well by "obviously illegal" I mean things like B&E to place a wire tap, cell phone intercepts, etc stuff like that.

However that answers exactly what I was asking so thanks much for the insight.

Jason, Jeff, BH, etc since I have you let me expand.

I'm envisioning a thriller/mystery character. A freelance report who would have plausible reason to stick his nose into something but also a guy who doesn't mind breaking the rules if he thinks its for a greater good (yes a means-justify-ends guy, I tend to like them as protags). This guy would take the place of the ubiquitos private eye/spy/police detective but it would be slightly more realistic for things like equipment & contacts than the "meddlsome kid" archtype--I realize an investigative journalist is not exactly an unkown trope but still...

So would said person "work for the AP" or some such, or would they be refered to as something else? --if that question makes sense--

I hear your angst Mike and I don't want to rehash the other thread here; we'll have to agree to disagree because I think based on what I'm seeing when I channel surf CNN/MSNBC, big NBC and CBS to counterbalance my 90 minutes of Fox a day that I see what I see [I mean have you heard Wolf & Jack McCafferty in the Situation Room?]. People telling me I don't see what I see isn't going to move me to the belief I don't SEE it.

However that is neither here nor there. I didn't start this to rearuge the NewsJunkies thread points. Bitter H just caught me off guard as while I can understand/comphrehend people thinking there's no left-bias in Large Media but for people to think Jason Blair, Katie Couric and Dan Rather (e.g.) were actively Carrying Water for the Admin just floored me and I allowed myself to digress.

I respect greatly your input on my outside-the-lines freelance reporter gathering his proof by hook or by crook. So try to think of me in that favorable light, lol. [did I mention I voted for Herry Reid?]

I hear you saying that if I provided audio/visual proving that Dick Chenny was a Sith Lord that I had gained by breaking into his house and illegally taping his phone and placing secret Nanny-Cams you'd run with it. Maybe you wouldn't want to hear just how I got those bytes of him in the shower with Nancy Pelosi but you'd take them just the same

I'm not a journalist, but my thought would be that SOME editor would run the story if it was good enough, even if the reporter refused to disclose sources. Let's face it, standing in line at the market, you can read the headlines on a lot of publications that we know can't possibly have been written with any source other than about four fingers of Johnny Walker. UFO ATTACKS NAVAL BASE! CHILD BORN WITH BAT WINGS! GATES OF HELL OPEN! ROSIE ENGAGED TO DONALD TRUMP!