Media Blog reader Bill Cox has a question:

One thing I’ve been wondering about:
Why isn’t the Times held on contempt, just as Miller is? She’s almost certainly a statutory employee, but even if she’s an independent contractor her actions are clearly taken on behalf of her employer (and she wouldn’t be so well-connected if it weren’t for the increasingly-irrelevant Times).
So wouldn’t a fine for contempt of, say, $1 million per day, encourage the Times to release the info that they’re obviously trying to conceal?

I guess Fitzgerald would have explored that option, but I’m not sure why there aren’t other ways to compel cooperation in this case. However, I’m also baffled about some other things: How can anyone consider the Times’ coverage of this issue credible anymore? The Times is hiding information that the public increasingly needs to know. Who was Miller’s source? With whom did she speak, and what did they talk about? Why is the Times covering up her role in this case, while hammering away at Rove?

The Times should answer these questions