Friday links and other silliness

In reference to the "Congress Grants Bloggers Journalistic Rights", ARE THEY SERIOUS? That's one of the craziest things I've heard in a while. First of all, the "freedom of the press" is only a right for the press to print whatever they want (as long as it's reasonably believed to be true) without fear of governmental censorship or interference. I've not read ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it says that a reporter doesn't have to reveal their sources. Granted, if it's regarding something that's not a crime, then who cares? If it DOES involve a crime, then the reporter should be considered to be just as much an accomplice as I would, had I knowledge of a crime after the fact and not informed the authorities of this knowledge. Now, I'm not saying that you real reporter types are doing anything wrong, but if an "anonymous source" comes to you (and you know who they are) and they tell you about a crime that they've committed, then you are guilty of being an accessory after the fact. A doctor cannot be forced to testify regarding the treatment of a patient, the clergy cannot be forced to testify about the confessions or "counsel" to a parishioner, and a spouse can't be forced to testify against their spouse, but a journalist does not enjoy the same rights as these other roles, and for good reason. I may be mistaken about the whole "having the right to conceal sources in criminal cases", but I doubt it. If I am, then something needs to be changed. That's the same as harboring or "giving aid and comfort" to a fugitive...which IS illegal.