Reply #11: It wasn't coerced. That "coerced" stuff is a lot of bull.

[joemurphy]

The whole spiel about general waivers being "coerced" or "not specific enough" is just a big red herring. This is the best explanation I've found about it:

<http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071405.shtml>

TAYLOR (2/14/04): The media's self-interested approach to such issues may explain the remarkably muted reaction to a February 10 Washington Post report that several White House officials have refused requests by prosecutors that they sign waivers releasing reporters from any promises of confidentiality to their sources in this case. The waiver forms reportedly request "that no member of the news media assert any privilege or refuse to answer any questions from federal law enforcement authorities on my behalf or for my benefit."

Why haven't the media—which have long clamored for Bush to order his aides to cooperate fully with prosecutors—made a stink about his apparent failure to order them to sign these waivers? The answer seems to be that the media understand that such waivers would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources.

Taylor closed his piece by requesting “a more forceful effort by Bush to get his staff to come clean.” But according to Taylor, a major insider, why weren’t his colleagues in the press talking about this failure by Bush? What explained their “remarkably muted reaction” to that February 10 report? Yes, the report was news, Taylor said—but the press was taking a “self-interested approach!” In Taylor’s view, the media understood that such waivers “would increase the pressure on them to disclose their sources.” And because they didn’t want to do that (more below), they were hushing the topic.