The normally reserved Jay Rosen comes out today with both barrels blazing at Bob Novak:

I, for one, have had it with Robert Novak. And if all the journalists who are talking today about "chilling effects" and individual conscience mean what they say, they will, as a matter of conscience and pride, start giving Novak himself the big chill.

That means if you're a Washington columnist maybe you don't go on CNN with him-- until he explains. If you're a newspaper editor you consider suspending his column until he explains. If you're Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, you take him off the air until he decides to go on the air and explain. If you're John Barron, editor of the Chicago Sun-Times, you suspend your columnist (with pay, I should think); and if Barron won't do it then publisher John Cruickshank should.

If Novak says he can't talk until the case is over, then he shouldn't be allowed to publish or opine on the air until the case is over. He should know the rage some of his colleagues feel. Claiming to be "baffled" by Novak's behavior may have been plausible for a while. With Miller now sitting in jail, and possibly facing criminal charges later, "baffled" is sounding lame.

It'll be interesting to see if any of the news organization have the stomach to push back against Novak--but to steal a line from Gawker: "We can guess what happens, actually, and it begins with a 'N' and ends with a 'OTHING.'"

We passed Novak on the street earlier this week, and it was like being passed by one of Azkaban's Dementors. Chills.

> Dan Froomkin has some harsh words for the others involved in the case: "In fact, the only people not getting tipped off are the members of the public, and it's time that stopped. Why is everyone keeping Fitzgerald's secrets for him? Enough!

"For instance, if Cooper and Time are willing to divulge their sources to Fitzgerald, why not go public? What are they waiting for?"