|
 |
September 30, 2003 WHO WILL BE THE FIRST TO RAT?....The Nation's David Corn, who was the first to break the Plame story back in July, writes today about yesterday's White House press briefing:
Who will be the first? Posted by Kevin Drum at September 30, 2003 11:17 AM | TrackBackComments
Is it really "revealing a source" if the reporter didn't use the information given? At least six reporters were leaked to, only one (Novak) used the info. So can the others blow the whistle without committing the dreaded sin of "ratting out a confidential source?" Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKOn the grounds listed by grytpype (if that is their real name...) I would imagine that it would indeed be ratting out a source, even if you didn't publish the info. At least, that's the way all the other confidential sources would see it, and that's the whole point, isn't it? Posted by: Steve-O at September 30, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKWhy is it unethical to reveal a source who is committing a felony and jeopardizing national security. Doctors are duty bound to break confidentiality if a patient says "I'm going to kill my girlfriend." Why can't a reporter decide that this is a big enough deal to break a custom. What's the ethical principle? Posted by: Ted at September 30, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKI think to make it stick someone's going to have to go on record. I
can't imagine a reporter worth his salt is going to rat out a source.
Would such a reporter EVER again be the recipient of a tip? God I wish one of the reporters would tell us the identity of the 'leaker', because this rampant speculation is getting annoying. This is a self-created mystery. If reporters were reporting we wouldn't be having this problem. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKHoward Fineman on last night's Hardball: http://www.msnbc.com/news/973846.asp MATTHEWS: Well, the “Washington Post” is a very credible organization
in Washington, D.C. Is that the main source that everybody is pegging
this to? Their report from a Saturday source, apparently, that the
administration or two people in the White House were making these calls
to leak this information about Joe Wilson‘s wife, Howard? Careful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog. Posted by: Registered Independent Joel at September 30, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINKFYI, TNR has started an online debate between Spencer Ackerman, one of their assistant editors, and Cliff May. Ackerman's started it, and is pretty critical of May's lame piece in NRO. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKI find it interesting that with all the talk we've heard about who and what Ms. Plame's husband is and how it affects the story, we haven't heard too much about who and what Ms. Mitchell's husband is. Surely she has solid enough connections to the Bush administration - given that her husband is one of the hypothetical suspects - that her evidence should be enhanced as much as the east blogosphere seems to think that Ms. Plame's is diminished? Posted by: julia at September 30, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINKDo the usual rules about confidential sources apply in a case like this? Where the leak IS the story, and a crime as well? Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 11:40 AM | PERMALINKCareful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog. So what? It's only been what, 3 days? Setting aside the serious national security implications, this is an interesting, engaging, story. Why shouldn't Kevin cover it to the extent that he wants? That's the point of weblogs. Eventually (I've been weblogging since 1999, I know this), there will be new topics or another all-consuming issue. But I've seen this kind of reaction before from readers of weblogs and always found it strange. It's not as though there aren't lots of weblogs to read, now. And if Kevin, or whoever, wants to drill down on one particular issue for awhile, what's the harm? If you don't like it, check back in a week or a month. It's just such an odd criticism. Posted by: Medley at September 30, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINKWhy is it unethical to reveal a source who is committing a felony and jeopardizing national security. IMO it wouldn't be unethical in the least to act on information given by a confidential source if the journalist doing so knew lives or national security were on the line, (even if said action meant revealing a source). But surely we're beyond that now. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak, and at this juncture revealing sources would be largely a matter helping the government to prosecute someone (assuming a law's been broken). I'm not so sure revealing a source would't be an ethics violation in this case. In fact I'd guess it would be such a violation. Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 11:43 AM | PERMALINKI suspect the WaPo will have the name within the next few days. On her show, Diane Rehm asked Dana Priest this morning if she thought this thing had legs. And Priest said, "oh yeah, we're going to ..." then stopped herself. Then she said, "I think this has reached a feeding frenzy." So at the very least, the WaPo is going to do something that Priest doesn't want us to know about yet--but that will keep this thing moving. Remember, Priest knows who did it--she was told off the record over the weekend. So now she just needs to find a way to get it on the record. And if that many people in the WH are boiling, I think Priest may be close. Remember, from their story this morning, they've got SIX people working on this. Which means that 1) they've got the legs and collective contacts to put this together, and 2) the editors realize this is going to really be a feather in their not-the-NYT cap, and are committed to getting the story. Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINKNot to worry, folks. John Ashcroft is on the case! Posted by: chris at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINKKevin, please write about cooking more often. That's what your readers are interested in. Posted by: Atrios at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINKI'm rather annoyed by the whole thing, too. Is their job reporting - telling people what is going on - or not? They can't tell us who it the white house has committed a felony, treason really, endangered our whole network of covert WMD operations, behaved dispicably - because it might affect their own careers? Pfui. Furthermore, it can't be the case that an entity that knows it is about to be involved in a scandal can keep all the well known reporters from reporting on it by leaking to them - can it? Awfully self serving, if so. Posted by: Emma Anne at September 30, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINKAtrios: It's a twofer: I *do* smell goose cooking. Posted by: chris at September 30, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINKTed: It's part of the profession of journalism. Reporters get most of their info from human sources. Preferably, the source will go on the record, meaning you can identify them by name. Often, if the info is juicy, the source cannot allow their name in print without facing nasty repercussions, so the reporter pushes the source for info by negotiation (about how broadly to identify the source). In that case, it becomes a solemn trust not to ever, ever, ever name them. Sometimes, the reporter is forced to tell their editor and/or publisher as well in order to convince them to run the story, but with the same understanding that the identity of the source does not ever go beyond that. It's a very firm code, and if a reporter breaks the unwritten confidentiality agreement, their career is as good as finished since they prove themselves totally untrustworthy. Moreover, the law Bush Sr. enacted re: the outing of covert CIA identities specifically exempts those broadcasting the leak, and only criminalizes the leaker. Hence the workings of checks and balances. A free press is able to weed out the wrongdoings of the powerful and dastardly. Posted by: Scott in Montreal at September 30, 2003 11:46 AM | PERMALINKSurely she (Andrea Mitchell) has solid enough connections to the Bush administration - given that her husband is one of the hypothetical suspects - that her evidence should be enhanced as much as the east blogosphere seems to think that Ms. Plame's is diminished? Alan Greenspan is one of the hpothetical suspects? Really? This is getting weirder by the nanosecond. Posted by: P. B. Almeida at September 30, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINKemptywheel writes: "And Priest said, "oh yeah, we're going to ..." then stopped herself." I bet she was going to say " ... fuck him. Do you hear me? We will fuck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fucked him!" Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINKValerie Plame was supposedly an undercover agent. She allegedly used her maiden name (Valerie Plame, rather than Valerie Wilson) while undercover to disguise her identity. Being an undercover agent, she couldn't let anyone know that she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment. If that were the case, they might not trust her. Right? Or so the story goes. A little-repeated fact is that if these contacts had Google (or Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, or any other Google-driven site -- and I haven't even checked non-Google ones), they could have found out here, here, here that Plame was the wife of an Ambassador. It is stated in plain English: "Joseph Wilson is married to the former Valerie Plame." Given how easy it would be to discover that Plame is an ambassador's wife, how much of an additional difference does it make that the world can now find out that she a CIA agent, too? Posted by: Bo Cowgill at September 30, 2003 11:49 AM | PERMALINKBow Cowgill writes: "she was really the wife of an Ambassador -- and therefore clearly connected to the American foreign policy and intelligence establishment." It would be a weaker connection if she married him after he left the diplomatic corps, in 1998. Barbara Bush is married to a former Ambassador, and former head of the CIA. Doesn't make her a spook. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKJon H LOL Although have you ever heard Dana Priest? She doesn't strike me as the "fuck him like he's never been fucked before type." Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINKMaybe one of the reporters will just do the right thing, and be an unidentified source to another reporter's scoop. On the other hand, it couldn't be from the same news organization, as it would be obvious who leaked. And maybe the competitive instinct in journalism is too great. Posted by: Andrew Boucher at September 30, 2003 11:57 AM | PERMALINKGood Lord, now people at lefty sites are quoting HOward Fineman, usually ridiculed by same lefties for a being a Bush shill. Oh, the irony. Posted by: greg at September 30, 2003 11:58 AM | PERMALINKNo one in the press will rat unless forced to legally, of by doing it ins such a way as not to be seen as a rat. I think Tenet's the lynchpin here. Everyone but he has something to lose. And none of it would now be a huge scandal had he not requested an investigation. If he thinks he's scared Rove enough to leave the CIA alone, this thing could easily subside. If not, this may get ugly. But in this situation, Tenet is top dog, I suspect. Posted by: tristero at September 30, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINK...tired of the Bo Cowgills and sundry mouthpieces insisting that if she exists, she's not covert... Posted by: squiddy at September 30, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINK"Often, if the info is juicy, the source cannot allow their name in print without facing nasty repercussions, so the reporter pushes the source for info by negotiation (about how broadly to identify the source). In that case, it becomes a solemn trust not to ever, ever, ever name them. Sometimes, the reporter is forced to tell their editor and/or publisher as well in order to convince them to run the story, but with the same understanding that the identity of the source does not ever go beyond that." Doesn't that change if the 'source' is 'shopping around' information? The whole charge here is that some administration person was shopping around information--practically throwing it at reporters. He didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information around. There is no solemn trust issue, and the journalists in question are either allowing a non-story to get big, or they are not helping us find the truth about a big story. Journalists get a special pass on a lot of things because they hold a position of trust. They aren't fulfilling that position by their stance on this case. Posted by: Sebastian Holslcaw at September 30, 2003 12:03 PM | PERMALINKHey, I know. How about a Secret Military Tribunal? Then the journalists could reveal what they know and nobody would ever know. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINKGood Lord, now people at lefty sites are quoting HOward Fineman, usually ridiculed by same lefties for a being a Bush shill. Oh, the irony. Um, in case you haven't noticed, they've been quoting Robert Novak a lot, too. In fact, if you think about it real hard, I bet you'll realize that the people to whom the Bush Administration is most likely to leak are not flaming liberals. Posted by: few at September 30, 2003 12:08 PM | PERMALINKSebastian H., given the Bush administration's propensity to shut out those journalists who have the temerity to not toe the GOP line, it's not surprising that the reporters in question haven't been forthcoming about what they were told about Plame. It also may indicate that the leaker(s) in question were pretty high up in the Bush hierarchy. Maybe even to the V.P. level. Posted by: David W. at September 30, 2003 12:10 PM | PERMALINKDavid Corn said he was the first journalist to report the Plame story, on July 16th. However, it's worth noting that John Dean, famous White House attorney and legal columnist for FindLaw, followed up two days later with great outrage and legal analysis [not necessarily in that order] on July 18th. Dean's column can be found here: A half-dozen journalists sitting on this information will rapidly find their positions untenable. Posted by: D. Case at September 30, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINKI think we're missing a branch of the 'protect your sources' defense. Reporters need anonymous sources to do their jobs. Many of the really juicy bits of information leaked to the press would not be if the leakers couldn't be confident that they would remain anonymous. This confidence must be purchased by a pledge never to reveal sources, regardless of the reason. Of course, in some cases such a pledge must be ignored or superceeded by other claims (as when the leaker is giving up information about some future crime they plan to commit) but I don't know if this case qualifies as one of the proper exceptions to the rule. The fact that the leaking is, in itself, a crime, is certainly not enough, on its own, to argue that the pledge of secrecy must be broken. Consider that both Deep Throat and Daniel Ellesburg were likely breaking the law by their leaks. We wouldn't want a world where people were afraid to leak sensitive government information because the fact that doing so, as a crime, warranted the reporters giving them up. I don't know quite if this case warrants breaking the pledge. I know I would like to see it done, but that's because I am interested in the ends, not the means. Perhaps the means here would be too damaging. . . Posted by: epist at September 30, 2003 12:14 PM | PERMALINKAtrios has the story, apparantly they are all saying privately it's Rove. Still not out in the open though. Posted by: Boronx at September 30, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINKRegarding John Dean's legal analysis of Plamegate: Oops...meant to say August 15th, and here's the correct link: Keep revving it, Kevin. This issue is worth all the attention you're giving it. Posted by: kimster at September 30, 2003 12:18 PM | PERMALINKJP See what I mean? She's not the "fuck him like he's never been fucked before type." Particularly with someone as, um, unwholesome looking as Karl Rove. By the way, her book The Mission is quite good. Pretty and good at what she does. Posted by: emptywheel at September 30, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINKI think the journalists might break cover if their source openly and directly denies participation. Thus the importance of 'non-denial denials' like Scott McClellan's attempts to say that Rove had nothing to do with it without actually saying Rove had denied it. If Rove was the source, and if he gets up and says "I didn't do it", I think that clears journalists to say "Yes, he did do it". Precedent being a case where, apparently, Ollie North criticized a leak to a magazine, and the magazine revealed that Ollie North was the source of the leak. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:23 PM | PERMALINKThe problem I have with the story as reported is that the story is all about the identity of the leaker. The story is not about breaking into Watergate--incidentally leaked by Deep Throat. The story is that an offical leaked information which put national security in peril. The IDENTITY of this person IS THE STORY. If the story was Ms. Plame used nepotism to get Mr. Wilson an assignment in Niger, the identity of the leaking party isn't the story. When the story is about potentially national security damaging leaks from the administration, the IDENTITY of the person doing the leaking is key to the story. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at September 30, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK"The whole charge here is that some administration person was
shopping around information--practically throwing it at reporters. He
didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information
around." Well, if that was the case, the reporter(s) would've gladly quoted them by name. What is most likely is that the source threw them a tease like: "I have something juicy for you on Wilson's wife, but you can't use it on my name." Reporter: Can I say it comes from a Senior Administration Official? Source: That couches me too much. I can be a 'source from within the administration'. Reporter: Okay. What've you got? Source: (Spills the beans). It's been a while since I was an active journalist, but it goes something like that. The reporter wouldn't be made privy to the info otherwise, and would get severely blacklisted for divulging the info. Then the reporter and all the others from their outlet would not get any such crumbs for a long, long time from anybody. Posted by: Scott in Montreal at September 30, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINKepist nails it. I find it inconvenient that the Wilson Six seem to mean it when they give their word, but my convenience doesn't constitute a moral imperative. This is a question of focus, and a good analogy is the rule that forbids the use of the fruits of an illegal search. If you narrow your field of vision to only the case at hand, obviously it makes sense to use the evidence anyway. Punish the officer who stepped over the line, but don't let the guilty go free just because the most important evidence was gathered illegally. If you widen your focus, however, and look at the long-term results of such a policy you find that it's a disaster. So instead of asking "Why shouldn't reporters burn their sources in this case?" let's ask "What would we know about this story if reporters routinely burned their sources?" The answer, obviously, is "nothing." One may regard that as a welcome result, depending on one's political sympathies, but I'm going to put forward the radical suggestion that protecting sources leads in the long term to more transparency, even if it's occasionally frustrating in the short term. This story is too big. It's gonna blow open one way or another. For thirty years every new journalist has dreamed of being the next Bob Woodward. Every reporter in D.C. is hammering on this story. It'll break. Posted by: Laertes at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKSebastian: "He didn't negotiate for secrecy, he was allegedly throwing the information around. There is no solemn trust issue" Uh, way to speculate wildly. Weren't you just calling for less speculation? I'm sure you weren't privy to the conversation. Nothing in 'shopping around' precludes 'off the record'. In fact, they're often related. I like the one reporter being an anonymous source for another reporter angle. Yes, it requires going to another organization, but if you cross media the rivalries aren't strong. Does NBC compete meaningfully with the Washington Post? Nah. Posted by: sidereal at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKAt first, McClellan called the charge that Rove was involved "ridiculous." Indeed it was, but not in the way that poor Scott meant. Posted by: tristero at September 30, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINKWow. Rove was personally on those calls? This is going to be a Mongolian clusterfuck for the Bush Junta. The big question: did they think to provide President Junior with plausable deniability or not? A sane operative would take care of that, but these guys are clearly not sane. Posted by: grytpype at September 30, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINKSebastian writes: "The story is that an offical leaked information which put national security in peril. The IDENTITY of this person IS THE STORY." Yes, and just like in the Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen cases, it's up to the press to root out the guilty party. Oh, wait, that's right. Somehow in those cases the press wasn't required to find the security threat. Posted by: Jon H at September 30, 2003 12:32 PM | PERMALINKCareful, Kevin. Calpundit is in danger of becoming a single-issue blog. Posted by: Wilbur Jones at September 30, 2003 12:36 PM | PERMALINKMan is the missing link between apes and human beings. Posted by: Lieber Angie at January 25, 2004 06:32 AM | PERMALINKOnly when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all. Posted by: Mayer Kaety at May 2, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKIf you're going through hell, keep going.Everybody is a star with the potentiality to shine in the infinite sky of eternity. Posted by: Brockway Kim at May 3, 2004 03:48 AM | PERMALINKImitation is the sincerest form of television. online casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 10:24 AM | PERMALINKIt is dangerous to confuse children with angels. big cocks - hardcore toons - hardcore sex - ifriends webcams adult chat - amateur porn - naked celebs - asian porn pics - mega cock cravers - naked amateurs - free xxx movies download - Schooly Girls - Sweet Horny Babes - Xxx Live Motel - Leg World - Hustler Barely Legal - Hustler Sex - Home Town Girls - Busty Beauties - Dog Fart Black On Blondes Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 12:30 AM | PERMALINKcaptainstabbin captain stabbin captain stabbin anal adventures captain stabbin anal sex captain stabbin free captain stabbin galleries captain stabbin gallery captain stabbin images captain stabbin moive captainstabbin movies captain stabbin movies captain stabbin mpegs captain stabbin photos Posted by: inthevip at June 30, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINK
Best XXX Sites - In your free time, visit some relevant pages in the field of http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ online poker http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em ... Posted by: tramadol at August 16, 2004 12:35 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
