The Prime Minister has defended the prosecution of two journalists for not revealing their source, saying the Government has a right to conduct some of its business in secret.
Two journalists from the Canberra bureau of News Limited's newspaper have been warned they face going to jail for contempt of court if they do not identify a source who gave them confidential government documents. Herald Sun
John Howard says the Federal Government has followed routine procedure in the investigation and prosecution of journalists Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey over the leak.
He has told Southern Cross Radio he respects reporters' need to preserve confidences but the Government has a right to some secrecy.

In similar context, from Don't Weep for Judith Miller

... Sure, the idea of protecting sources is a good one, in that reporters should keep their word and, by doing so, maintain their ability to secure information in the future. Ultimately, however, the journalist is not beholden to sources, but rather to the public. The salient fact of this ugly episode is that the White House was trying to use cultivated journalists, secret sourcing and classified information in an attempt to smear a legitimate whistle-blower who was challenging its rationale for leading the nation into war. ...
... To be sure, Miller didn't make anything up, she just relayed whatever her anonymous sources told her — nearly all of which turned out to be garbage. In this way, Miller and other reporters like her can pretend to follow the letter of journalistic protocol, while flouting its spirit and purpose. What she should have done was challenge her sources and stop protecting them when she found out their information was false. ...

Journalism is not such a sole-wearing chore, when the hot calls come in for free, and the veteran doesn't need to shift his fat arse an inch. The shit sandwiches, fresh from the hands of the gourmet chef at the Tory Dirt Unit, taste heavenly, and fill out the editorial paunch very nicely. They are not common or garden leaks, when they are garmished by an approved source. Eh, Miles? Happy Tampa Day.

When the S.A. Libs announced that they were going to upset the applecart of national defamation legislation negotiations (expialidocious)  by adding the right of a corporation to sue an individual at around the same that Howard was implying that all liberties were secondary to survival, I smelt the beginnings of a concerted effort.

Would Howard's Liberals, Federal and State, capitalise on the confusion surrounding international disasters to seize as much power as possible?  Bet on it.  Benevolence doesn't appear to be one of Johnee's strong points.  On the other hand, when it comes to political opportunism he's a master gamesman.

I don't like the way the script is being enacted right now.  I'd like to know which "Regime change department" of what Houston based advertising company is writing our Federal Cabinet's lines.

Regime Change doesn't necessarily only happen to enemies.

From the ABC

PM 'misrepresented' at health ministers' meeting

The Prime Minister says he has been hideously misrepresented over a letter which suggested there was little value in a national meeting of health ministers considering the issue of junk food advertising.

Some State Ministers have accused John Howard of trying to gag them and they have vowed to push ahead with a task force on the issue.

Mr Howard says it is ridiculous to suggest he is trying to stop people talking about obesity.

"The Commonwealth remained of the view that there should not be mandatory restrictions and that a code of practice should be adhered to and developed and therefore we didn't think the issue of restricting TV advertising should be put on the agenda, but people can talk about the issue," he said.

------------------------------------

Gus: Amazing!
Says out mean grocer: "talk as much as you like but it won't make a brass razoo of difference..."

(See talkfest blog above...)

Hey Jonnee, here's something to think about in regard to kids getting fatter:
Soon the cost of medical examination will to go through the roof as we catch up:
-------------------

From the ABC

Many Americans too fat for X-rays
A new study from the the United States suggests that an increasing number of hospital patients are too fat to be diagnosed properly by X-ray scanners.

An estimated two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese, a state of affairs which has led to a whole range of related health issues.

But now researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital have found that extra body fat is not only causing problems, but hindering their diagnosis.

They have analysed X-ray examinations over a 15-year period and found the number of tests deemed inconclusive because of the patient's size doubled in that time.

In some cases the patient was simply too fat to fit inside the scanner.

In others, he or she had so much fat that ultrasound beams and X-rays were unable to produce clear enough images of the internal organs under scrutiny.