When they do that, they are pressing the envelope. There may be circumstances where it's appropriate indemnifying someone from a liable claim if what they say is true, is such an example. This kind of action doesn't have a lot of precedent in other words. Relieving someone of their contractual obligations and I'm not sure that that's something the press really needs to do to get the news in this country. People, if they have urgent public information, newsworthy information, manage to get it out.
Journalists do that every day.
They pull their sources, information comes out through confidential sources and confidential sources have a significant degree of protection and the journalist has a significant degree of protection under law. Two, I bet the substance of Wigand's information will come out and within a week, out it came and through a leak into the Daily News and then CBS, which obviously had a role in the leaking, although it may have been against the will of their management, then they granted the indemnity that they had previously declined to grant it. So at that point they found themselves in the worst of possible worlds. As I said before, I don't think that the press should, you know, willy nilly enter into complex contracts of indemnity with sources. The press doesn't need that to get the news in this country.