Valerie Plame Case (Reporter Jailed)

[Pangloss]

So what do you folks think of this case? It went a bit further today, with the New York Times' Judith Miller (who refused to reveal the names of people she spoke to on the phone) went to jail.

 

Matthew Cooper, as it turns out, got a last-minute reprieve when his source let him off the hook. That's interesting, and it suggests to me that (a) we'll learn very shortly who that source is, and (b) it won't be Karl Rove (since he'd have no reason to let Cooper off the hook).

 

The Wikipedia has a very good, objective, extremely in-depth article on the subject here. I actually recommend reading this article even to those who are familiar with the case (something I'm not entirely sure I am even after reading several stories and this article!). It's awfully confusing.

 

In a very brief nutshell, Valerie Plame was a CIA operative whose husband was an ambassador for the US. When he spoke out against the Bush administration, someone in the White House revealed his wife's undercover CIA status to columnist Robert Novak. The incident is under the investigation of an independent counsel, who asked to see notes from reporters who worked on the case (to try and find out who the leak was). Outing an undercover agent is a serious offense. (If it were Karl Rove, for example, it would be somewhat akin to the revelation that Nixon's top aid ran Watergate.)

 

One of the more interesting aspects of this case is that it has many liberals asking that the reporters be forced to give up their sources (presumably so they can nail someone in the White House with a crime), and it has many conservatives crying for enforcement of protection for journalists! The role reversal isn't total -- journalists certainly side with not revealing the sources -- but it's quite interesting.

 

What do you all think?

[Dave]

Personally I think the decision to send Miller to jail was wrong. The job of the press is to report impartially on the government's actions, not to supply politicians (liberal or otherwise) with ammunition to gun others down.

 

Other than this, to me the entire thing seems a farce. I'm trying very hard not to let my arguments on here be affected by things such as my complete hatred for the Bush administration and everything it stands for, so I shan't post any more on it.

 

I just guess we'll have to see what else happens

[Pangloss]

Just to kinda prod the discussion a bit, how far would you extend that right, dave? For example, what about a reporter shielding a source who tells him or her the identity of an individual who cried "Fire!" in a crowded theater (just to pick a well-known exception to freedom of speech)?

[john5746]

Just to kinda prod the discussion a bit, how far would you extend that right, dave? For example, what about a reporter shielding a source who tells him or her the identity of an individual who cried "Fire!" in a crowded theater (just to pick a well-known exception to freedom of speech)?

 

The point as you know, is that sources who wish to remain anonymous will not be forth coming with information if they can be revealed later. So, it is troubling that the government can force the media to reveal sources who may have provided information against illegal actions by the same government.

[Pangloss]

Yes, I think that's a fair description.

 

Would you like to take a crack at my question to dave? You quoted it but then you stopped short with some background information. Did you lose your train of thought?

[john5746]

Yes' date=' I think that's a fair description.

 

Would you like to take a crack at my question to dave? You quoted it but then you stopped short with some background information. Did you lose your train of thought? [/quote']

 

It is a tough one - not your example, but in the case of misinformation with malice or treason, then I can see the need to forgo it. It can quickly get into some gray areas.

[Phi for All]

For example, what about a reporter shielding a source who tells him or her the identity of an individual who cried "Fire!" in a crowded theater (just to pick a well-known exception to freedom of speech)?

I feel that the reporter should still shield the source. There are avenues the informant can take to maintain as much anonymity as possible in identifiying the fire-shouter. It's ultimately their decision to come forward with the testimony. Pointing the police in the right direction often leads to confessions and useable circumstantial evidence, and shielding informants needs to be guaranteed to secure their cooperation.

 

In this particular example, let's say the informant wants to protect his identity because it was a porn theater and he was supposed to be working. To protect his job, his family and his reputation he informs a reporter who points the police in the right direction. You can bet the reporter will keep the informant apprised about the progress in the case. Even if their were fatalities involved, it is still up to the informant to come forward to testify, just like any other eyewitness. The fact that they had enough guts to come forward and at least tell a reporter in confidence should not be held against them. Many people won't even get that involved.

 

 

 

I don't think it will turn out to be Rove. I think he is the slimiest of all the DC spinners, but I also think he is too smart to do his own dirty work.

[Pangloss]

Ok, that's a good answer. Let me expand the discussion a bit.

 

What if the reporter lies? How do we know he hasn't invented the anonymous source out of thin air? This is a real problem when there's no clear and objective answer for a simple "cui bono" test. And it's aggravated by the elevated partisan atmosphere of current politics.

 

Haven't we already seen examples of the corruption of this power at the highest levels of the media already? Jayson Blair of the New York Times. Stephen Glass of The New Republic. Jack Kelley of USA Today. The BBC scandal of last year.

 

Of course, we found out about all of those, and there's something to be said for that. But still, it doesn't bode well for the reliability of individual anonymously-tipped stories, does it? Bear in mind that fact checkers and ombudsmen are powerless to deal with anonymous sources. What if Jayson Blair had left the paper after reporting some of his earlier stories, before it was discovered that he was a fraud?

 

Also, don't we have to evaluate the quality of a source? Why should we assume that, even if a reporter is being honest and truthful about his or her anonymous source, that the source is actually correct and accurate? What if they're acting at the behest of the opposition party? What if they're simply... mistaken? Sure, with whistleblowers maybe you can just look at it as a warning -- check and see if what they're saying is true, and if not, proceed. But in politics, it's not generally so clear.

[Pangloss]

Just as a side note, has anyone ever seen "Absence of Malice", with Paul Newman and Sally Field? It's interesting how they tackled the meat of this issue 24 years ago and I think the resolution of that movie (the scene with Wilford Brimley near the end) is fascinating from a socio-political perspective.

 

(There's y'all's Politics Board Homework Assignment for the weekend, lol.) =^D

[Pangloss]

Newsweek is now reporting that Rove was the source that let Cooper off the hook. ABC News had some lawyer types on tonight saying that Rove wasn't criminally liable, but I didn't catch what their reasoning was. The Newsweek story (their source is Rove's attorney) can be found here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

 

I wish I'd caught the whole story on ABC, but the only thing that leaps to my mind is that Rove might have simply confirmed what Cooper had already learned, and thus his statement that he didn't give out the name might be legit.

 

But while that may take things out of the Watergate realm, it does seem to more or less, finally, for the history books, confirm Rove's opportunistic, sneaky, underhanded methods. There seems little doubt now, from a completely non-partisan perspective, that Rove was the ultimate source of all the dirty tricks that were played against Bush opponents in his presidential and gubernatorial elections. Since much of that input came in the past from Bush's opponents, it was difficult to be objective about it. That objectivity seems to be present now.

 

A minor point, perhaps, but it says a lot about the state of election politics in this country, and it's something we need to have a national debate about before 2008. It's more important than, say, 527 orgs, or campaign contribution levels.

[Pangloss]

In thinking about this a bit more, I suspect that the reason he wouldn't be criminally liable might have something to do with the fact that he wasn't yet employed by the White House at the time. He worked for the Committee to Reelect at the time, I imagine, but that's not a public office.

[john5746]

More important is when did Bush know and what action will he take now.

[Pangloss]

I was wrong above, he was working for the White House at the time.

 

My postings keep getting OBE'd. I'm gonna step back from this for a while and wait for developments.