The Huffington Post finally has hit the big time.

Today at the site, firedoglake's Jane Hamsher takes on Dan Schorr, the latest eunuch-in-residence at the Temple of Saint Judy. Responding to Schorr's claim that Miller has been jailed for her principles, Jane states:

But I assume the "principle" Schorr is referring to is journalistic privilege. And to paint Judith Miller as some pure, willowy First Amendment martyr being broken on the wheel of a rigid justice department with no regard for civil rights can only be seriously entertained by those who are snapping bongloads with Curveball.

...

Further, Daniel, it wasn't just one judge who decided to send Judy to the slam. It was the decision of a three judge panel, and upheld without dissent by seven judges on the full federal appeals court in Washington. Since both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby have allegedly claimed that a reporter initially told them about Valerie Plame's identity, Fitzgerald is no doubt looking to find out what Judith Miller may have told them. What part of "journalistic privilege" allows reporters to refuse to answer questions about what they told other people? Please illuminate us, because enquiring minds want to know.

With contributions from Jane (and Harry Shearer), the Huffington Post may make it after all.

Meanwhile Bill Keller is still peddling the jumbo-sized mumbo:

At other papers, editors and reporters have detected greater hesitancy among some sources to disclose information. New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says he doesn't "think for a second this is going to be the death of anonymous source journalism." But several of his Washington reporters have noted signs of longtime sources becoming more anxious and more reluctant to speak freely on sensitive subjects. "At this point it's just anecdotal, but it's a worry," Keller says. "Some of it is just, 'I can't talk to you on the phone anymore,' and some of it is, 'I think I better lay low for a while.'"

As someone once said, the plural of anecdote is pile of crap.