The media should refrain from any comments on the case of the two SF Chronical reporters

Two SF Chronicle reporters may go to jail for not giving up their sources that leaked grand jury testimony to them. All day long, I am hearing, reading and watching the media comment on this issue. They all have the exact same opinion - that the two reporters are doing good and should keep their sources.

That opinion is completely expected? Why? Because:

- they are biased.
- they have the same agenda, same issues as these two SF Chronicle reporters.
- they need to keep their sources (or pretend-sources) confidential as well
- no one else can comment! who can comment? think about it. Op-ed letters to newspapers that will show up a week from now? Sports talk radio callers that are screened and get 15 seconds on air?

Reporters reporting on reporters are going to biased. They will not be giving a fair report. And, to top it off, if any reporter actually disagrees and thinks these two SF reporters should go to jail for not revealing their sources, what do you think would happen to them within their own community? Their colleagues will vilify them, their employers won't promote them, etc.

If only steroid users were the only people you hear on the radio, see on the TV or read in the newspapers, then obviously they'd have a different spin to it as well.

So listen/read to the media with a huge grain of salt. They have an agenda as a collective.