On TAP Online, I have a story with new disclosures regarding the federal grand jury investigation of the Valerie Plame affair. The lede to my story:
"Two days before columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, a Bush administration official told a reporter for the Washington Post that Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, had been sent to Niger on a sensitive diplomatic mission only because his wife recommended him for the job. The administration official admitted his role to federal prosecutors during their investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.
"The Bush administration official, according to attorneys familiar with his testimony, told a federal grand jury that he made the claim to the Post reporter and others in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, who was alleging at the time that the Bush administration was relying on faulty intelligence to bolster its case to go to war with Iraq. But the official just as adamantly denied to federal investigators... that he ever told the Post reporter, Novak, or anyone else that Plame was a clandestine CIA operative."
"The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, confirmed in an interview that the administration official attempted to discredit Wilson by claiming that Wilson had been sent on a boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife. But Pincus says that the official did not tell him that Plame was anything other than an analyst."
More than one of my readers-- and bloggers-- have already made the observation that I appear to have buried the lede in my story. They are absolutely correct! Down lower in my story, I write: "The grand jury uncovered evidence that several administration officials engaged in an aggressive and organized effort to discredit Wilson." And even lower, I write that federal investigators have for some time believed that columnist Novak has very likely lied to shield his sources from potential criminal culpability.
This is a story of an increasing importance, despite the judgment of editors at some leading news organizations that there might not be much more to the story, as leaks regarding the grand jury have been scarce, and the special counsel investigating the matter, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said he completed virtually all aspects of his investigation months ago.
As I see it, I can underplay what I have for now as I gain a competitive edge in reporting this story. I don't want to wake any sleeping giants-- say Tim Russert or Jill Abramson-- with such vastly greater (and corporate) resources than my 'lil blog, until I own this story. That there might be a story here of a far greater magnitude than currently meets the eye is a piece of information that I would ask my loyal readers keep as our secret for a while.
As for the still unnamed Bush administration official in the lede to my story, there apparently were no grounds for criminal charges to be brought against him by the grand jury because the evidence did not demonstrate that he acted with the intent to reveal the status of a covert CIA operative.
But the grand jury clearly did uncover evidence that the official was part of a concerted campaign to silence and discredit Wilson and others critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. And whatever the official's intentions, his reckless actions may have played some role in the disclosure that Plame was a clandestine CIA officer; impaired then ongoing U.S. intelligence operations; endangered sensitive intelligence sources; and undermined the war on terrorism. Most of the rest of us would be in a little trouble at our work if we got caught doing something like that!
It would nice to see a reporter for some major news organization ask during tomorrow's White House press briefing, what, if any, disciplinary action, President Bush might take against this official, and why none has been taken already. (Word of warning: If nobody asks this question, I am going to get White House press credentials of my own, so that I can ask the question. If James Gluckert/James Gannon can obtain a White House press pass, I assume that I can as well.)
Meanwhile, Josh Marshall has been too kind to me, writing on talkingpointsmemo.com: "Just a note for those of you looking for the latest news on the Valerie Plame story. Murray Waas's new blog `Whatever Already' has been the source for the latest updates, all based on his extensive and continued original reporting on the subject." Josh has more faith in me than I do, or more faith that I deserve. But now the pressure is on!
Random notes: For those of you who have wanted me to write, report, or blog about the Bolton nomination, you would be much better served to read Laura Rozen's indispensable warandpiece.com blog, Steve C. Clemons' "Washington Note", as well as Josh. I will have a post with some original reporting on Bolton by the middle of the week. For those not following the story as closely, the entire saga can perhaps be summed up in a single sentence in this lengthy Time magazine article out on newsstands tomorrow morning: "There is a saying in Washington that you meet on the way down all the people you stepped on the way up."
For those wondering about the deconstruction and analysis of my own story, it begs the question-- once again-- as to whether this is a blog or a parody of a blog.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
A Whatever Already Editorial!
On Sept. 30, 2003, upon learning that the Department of Justice had commenced a criminal investigation to determine who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, President Bush had this to say: "I want to know who it is and if the person has violated the law. The person will be taken care of."
Later on Oct. 6, 2003, President Bush was even more emphatic in asserting that he would hold accountable whoever had leaked derogatory information to the press about Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, saying: "If anybody has got any information inside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department, so we can find the leaker." The unauthorized disclosure, Bush said, was a "very serious matter" and a "criminal action."
I know that the President is a busy man, and he probably does not read the American Prospect Online. I don't always read it that regularly myself (especially when they are late in sending me a pay check). And when I called the White House seeking a comment for my for my last TAP story about the Plame affair, it was an intern who handled my query. (I am not joking.) I have actually had had my inquiries taken more seriously when I have called the White House seeking comment for a post for my blog. (Again, no kidding.)
Perhaps the President or someone on the White House senior staff reads my blog?!
In my TAP Online story, I disclosed that an administration official had testified to a federal grand jury that two days before columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, the official had told a reporter for the Washington Post that Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, had only been sent on a sensitive diplomatic mission to Niger because his wife had purportedly recommended him for the job. In his testimony to the grand jury, the Bush administration official asserted that he did not tell the Post reporter, Walter Pincus, that Plame was a clandestine CIA officer. And in his own statements to prosecutors, Pincus has largely backed up the official's version of events. Still, the official testified it was his intent to discredit Wilson, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.
It is more likely than not that the Bush administration official did not violate federal law, in that there is no strong evidence that the official acted with the purposeful intent to out a clandestine CIA officer. It is also unclear as to whether the official who spoke to Pincus was one of the two "senior administration officials" who spoke to Novak.
But clearly the official was acting recklessly in bandying around the fact to a Washington Post reporter that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA, and that Wilson only was sent to Niger as a result of her purported nepotism. Only two short days later, if Novak can be trusted, two administration officials told Novak much the same story. As a result, Plame was identified in Novak's column as a CIA "operative"; ongoing intelligence operations were impaired; sensitive intelligence sources were endangered; and the war on terrorism was undermined.
If the President were interested in knowing who this official is, all that he needs to do at this point is inquire amongst his own senior staff. What he does next-- discipline the official in some meaningful way, fire him, slap him on the wrist, or simply glare at him-- is up to the President. But George W. Bush is the President of the United States, and he can take whatever action he sees fit, or at least explain in the interim, why he remains silent and does nothing.
The time is long overdue for the President to speak to this issue.
Note to readers: In the future, there will be a most strict separation between those who break news for my blog (me), and those who write editorials and commentary. In due course, those who break news (me) and those who will write editorials will not even be allowed to speak to one another! However, for the time being, I am unable to afford to take on an editorial writer...
On Sept. 30, 2003, upon learning that the Department of Justice had commenced a criminal investigation to determine who in his administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak, President Bush had this to say: "I want to know who it is and if the person has violated the law. The person will be taken care of."
Later on Oct. 6, 2003, President Bush was even more emphatic in asserting that he would hold accountable whoever had leaked derogatory information to the press about Plame and her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, saying: "If anybody has got any information inside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department, so we can find the leaker." The unauthorized disclosure, Bush said, was a "very serious matter" and a "criminal action."
I know that the President is a busy man, and he probably does not read the American Prospect Online. I don't always read it that regularly myself (especially when they are late in sending me a pay check). And when I called the White House seeking a comment for my for my last TAP story about the Plame affair, it was an intern who handled my query. (I am not joking.) I have actually had had my inquiries taken more seriously when I have called the White House seeking comment for a post for my blog. (Again, no kidding.)
Perhaps the President or someone on the White House senior staff reads my blog?!
In my TAP Online story, I disclosed that an administration official had testified to a federal grand jury that two days before columnist Robert Novak named Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, the official had told a reporter for the Washington Post that Plame's husband, former ambassador Wilson, had only been sent on a sensitive diplomatic mission to Niger because his wife had purportedly recommended him for the job. In his testimony to the grand jury, the Bush administration official asserted that he did not tell the Post reporter, Walter Pincus, that Plame was a clandestine CIA officer. And in his own statements to prosecutors, Pincus has largely backed up the official's version of events. Still, the official testified it was his intent to discredit Wilson, a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.
It is more likely than not that the Bush administration official did not violate federal law, in that there is no strong evidence that the official acted with the purposeful intent to out a clandestine CIA officer. It is also unclear as to whether the official who spoke to Pincus was one of the two "senior administration officials" who spoke to Novak.
But clearly the official was acting recklessly in bandying around the fact to a Washington Post reporter that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA, and that Wilson only was sent to Niger as a result of her purported nepotism. Only two short days later, if Novak can be trusted, two administration officials told Novak much the same story. As a result, Plame was identified in Novak's column as a CIA "operative"; ongoing intelligence operations were impaired; sensitive intelligence sources were endangered; and the war on terrorism was undermined.
If the President were interested in knowing who this official is, all that he needs to do at this point is inquire amongst his own senior staff. What he does next-- discipline the official in some meaningful way, fire him, slap him on the wrist, or simply glare at him-- is up to the President. But George W. Bush is the President of the United States, and he can take whatever action he sees fit, or at least explain in the interim, why he remains silent and does nothing.
The time is long overdue for the President to speak to this issue.
Note to readers: In the future, there will be a most strict separation between those who break news for my blog (me), and those who write editorials and commentary. In due course, those who break news (me) and those who will write editorials will not even be allowed to speak to one another! However, for the time being, I am unable to afford to take on an editorial writer...
Mitch Albom Update
Elizabeth Spiers, of Mediabistro.com's FishbowlNY column has this hilarious take as to how the Detroit Free Press editor Carole Leigh Hutton has slapped-- or rather lightly patted-- Mitch Albom's wrist following disclosures that he fabricated details of one of his columns.
Leigh Hutton has said that Albom and four other Free Press employees, "each of whom had the responsibility to fix errors before publication" of Albom's column, will be disciplined in some unspecified manner. For more details, I recommend this story in Editor & Publisher.
I also have previously posted here on my blog-- a lengthy analysis by our very own media columnist-- describing how Leigh Hutton's missteps in the early days of the Mitch Albom affair detracted from the credibility of her newspaper. Indeed, our Pressing Matters column is one of our most widely read features (as many as a dozen unique visitors). Expect another Pressing Matters column on Albom later this week.
This L.A. Times account is also interesting in that it predicted before the fact that Albom would face nothing more than a slap on the wrist for his actions. Jack Lessenberry, a journalism professor at Wayne State University, who also writes a media column for an alternative weekly in Detroit, told the Times: "Albom is really the only recognizable name they [the Free Press} have. I think they will bend over backwards for marketing reasons not to fire him."
Elizabeth Spiers, of Mediabistro.com's FishbowlNY column has this hilarious take as to how the Detroit Free Press editor Carole Leigh Hutton has slapped-- or rather lightly patted-- Mitch Albom's wrist following disclosures that he fabricated details of one of his columns.
Leigh Hutton has said that Albom and four other Free Press employees, "each of whom had the responsibility to fix errors before publication" of Albom's column, will be disciplined in some unspecified manner. For more details, I recommend this story in Editor & Publisher.
I also have previously posted here on my blog-- a lengthy analysis by our very own media columnist-- describing how Leigh Hutton's missteps in the early days of the Mitch Albom affair detracted from the credibility of her newspaper. Indeed, our Pressing Matters column is one of our most widely read features (as many as a dozen unique visitors). Expect another Pressing Matters column on Albom later this week.
This L.A. Times account is also interesting in that it predicted before the fact that Albom would face nothing more than a slap on the wrist for his actions. Jack Lessenberry, a journalism professor at Wayne State University, who also writes a media column for an alternative weekly in Detroit, told the Times: "Albom is really the only recognizable name they [the Free Press} have. I think they will bend over backwards for marketing reasons not to fire him."
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Plame Exclusive: Attorney General refuses to comply with congressional request for information on the case.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has sent a letter to the House Intelligence Committee denying a request by nine committee Democrats seeking information about the Valerie Plame case.
The contents of the letter were described by a congressional aide and an administration official, who have both read the letter. It is unclear as to when, or whether even at all, the text of the letter will be released to the public.
In the letter, Gonzalez asserted that the Justice Department would not provide any information to members of Congress as long as a criminal investigation of the Plame matter was still ongoing.
But committee Democrats, in their request that Gonzalez turn over the information, had cited recent news reports and court filings by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicating that virtually all aspects of the criminal investigation had been completed as long as six months ago.
A senior congressional aide told me today that committee members were willing to forego specific information as to what Fitzgerald has uncovered, and instead focus on whether the special prosecutor had been faced with any legal obstacles prohibiting a prosecution.
"If existing legal authorities are insufficient to ensure successful prosecution of these kinds of breaches," nine Democrats on the House Intelligence committee, wrote Gonzalez on April 14, "the committee should be made aware of that fact immediately. The Congress and administration have a responsibility to ensure that our judiciary system has the tools necessary to ensure that those who violate oaths to protect classified information and the identity of federal undercover intelligence officers are brought to justice."
A senior congressional aide told me that it was possible, for example, that Fitzgerald might have identified the Bush administration official who had leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak but then had been stymied from pursuing a prosecution for any number of reasons.
A potential prosecution might require the disclosure of classified information, the congressional aide noted, prohibiting a prosecutor from bringing charges. In addition, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for disclosing the identity of a clandestine U.S. intelligence official. But there are such significant hurdles under the statute to bringing criminal charges, the aide pointed out, that Fitzgerald might have uncovered the perpetrator, yet still feel that his hands are tied to do anything about it.
A Justice Department spokesman did not return a phone call for comment last night. But if the Department does make some public comment, I will update this post at that time.
I will have more on this story soon.
The contents of the letter were described by a congressional aide and an administration official, who have both read the letter. It is unclear as to when, or whether even at all, the text of the letter will be released to the public.
In the letter, Gonzalez asserted that the Justice Department would not provide any information to members of Congress as long as a criminal investigation of the Plame matter was still ongoing.
But committee Democrats, in their request that Gonzalez turn over the information, had cited recent news reports and court filings by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicating that virtually all aspects of the criminal investigation had been completed as long as six months ago.
A senior congressional aide told me today that committee members were willing to forego specific information as to what Fitzgerald has uncovered, and instead focus on whether the special prosecutor had been faced with any legal obstacles prohibiting a prosecution.
"If existing legal authorities are insufficient to ensure successful prosecution of these kinds of breaches," nine Democrats on the House Intelligence committee, wrote Gonzalez on April 14, "the committee should be made aware of that fact immediately. The Congress and administration have a responsibility to ensure that our judiciary system has the tools necessary to ensure that those who violate oaths to protect classified information and the identity of federal undercover intelligence officers are brought to justice."
A senior congressional aide told me that it was possible, for example, that Fitzgerald might have identified the Bush administration official who had leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak but then had been stymied from pursuing a prosecution for any number of reasons.
A potential prosecution might require the disclosure of classified information, the congressional aide noted, prohibiting a prosecutor from bringing charges. In addition, under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for disclosing the identity of a clandestine U.S. intelligence official. But there are such significant hurdles under the statute to bringing criminal charges, the aide pointed out, that Fitzgerald might have uncovered the perpetrator, yet still feel that his hands are tied to do anything about it.
A Justice Department spokesman did not return a phone call for comment last night. But if the Department does make some public comment, I will update this post at that time.
I will have more on this story soon.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Identity Theft: The Plame Game
Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tonight sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez seeking an explanation as to why no criminal charges have been brought in the Valerie Plame case.
All nine Democrats on the committee expressed "grave concern" that whoever leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak might not be held accountable. As I first reported on the American Prospect Online, the special counsel leading the investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, had informed a federal court late last month that he had completed most of his investigation six months ago.
"Nearly two years have elapsed, and nobody has been held accountable for this serious violation of federal law," wrote the nine congressmen.
"Given that Mr. Fitzgerald has publicly acknowledged that the factual investigation of the Novak disclosure is complete, we request that you brief the committee on the matter and provide an explanation as to why no charges have been brought," the nine Democrats said.
On CNN, Gonzalez commented that he was confident that Fitzgerald was "proceeding on a basis that he thinks is appropriate and that at the appropriate time the matter will come to a head."
Gonzalez, however, knows no specifics as to what Fitzgerald might or might not have uncovered: During his Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzalez agreed to recuse himself from having anything to do with the Plame investigation. While White House counsel, Gonzalez had advised senior Bush administration officials how to respond to initial requests from the Justice Department.
A senior Justice Department official told me tonight that Fitzgerarld's investigation was still "an ongoing pursuit" and it was unlikely that any information he has unearthed would be turned over to Capitol Hill until the special prosecutor was completely finished with his work. The official also said it was unclear as to whether Fitzgerald, even if he wanted to, could turn over information to Congress obtained as a result of testimony before a federal grand jury. But the same Justice Department official asserted that there was nothing stopping members of Congress from pursuing their own inquiry of the Plame matter. Moreover, once Fitzgerald had completed his work, this same official said, Congress would be able to seek non-grand jury material from the special prosecutor.
A Justice Department spokesman did not return a phone call Friday. (However, if a spokesman does call back, or the Department makes any public statement regarding the congressional request, I will update this post at that time.)
Meanwhile, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, derided the letter as both partisan and a publicity stunt, telling reporters: "To me, what this smacks of is a purely partisan statement where they're not focused on getting a result. It's about getting a hit in the media." Hoekstra said that he was miffed that Democrats had not even sent him a copy of the letter, and that he had only learned of it through the media.
All nine Democrats on the committee expressed "grave concern" that whoever leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak might not be held accountable. As I first reported on the American Prospect Online, the special counsel leading the investigation, Patrick Fitzgerald, had informed a federal court late last month that he had completed most of his investigation six months ago.
"Nearly two years have elapsed, and nobody has been held accountable for this serious violation of federal law," wrote the nine congressmen.
"Given that Mr. Fitzgerald has publicly acknowledged that the factual investigation of the Novak disclosure is complete, we request that you brief the committee on the matter and provide an explanation as to why no charges have been brought," the nine Democrats said.
On CNN, Gonzalez commented that he was confident that Fitzgerald was "proceeding on a basis that he thinks is appropriate and that at the appropriate time the matter will come to a head."
Gonzalez, however, knows no specifics as to what Fitzgerald might or might not have uncovered: During his Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzalez agreed to recuse himself from having anything to do with the Plame investigation. While White House counsel, Gonzalez had advised senior Bush administration officials how to respond to initial requests from the Justice Department.
A senior Justice Department official told me tonight that Fitzgerarld's investigation was still "an ongoing pursuit" and it was unlikely that any information he has unearthed would be turned over to Capitol Hill until the special prosecutor was completely finished with his work. The official also said it was unclear as to whether Fitzgerald, even if he wanted to, could turn over information to Congress obtained as a result of testimony before a federal grand jury. But the same Justice Department official asserted that there was nothing stopping members of Congress from pursuing their own inquiry of the Plame matter. Moreover, once Fitzgerald had completed his work, this same official said, Congress would be able to seek non-grand jury material from the special prosecutor.
A Justice Department spokesman did not return a phone call Friday. (However, if a spokesman does call back, or the Department makes any public statement regarding the congressional request, I will update this post at that time.)
Meanwhile, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, derided the letter as both partisan and a publicity stunt, telling reporters: "To me, what this smacks of is a purely partisan statement where they're not focused on getting a result. It's about getting a hit in the media." Hoekstra said that he was miffed that Democrats had not even sent him a copy of the letter, and that he had only learned of it through the media.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Pressing Matters
Saturday Nights Without Mateen and Jason
Mitch Albom, the best selling author and sports columnist for the Detroit Free Press, apologized on Thursday for fabricating portions of a column he wrote last week-- sort of.
Albom admitted that a column he wrote and published in the Free Press last Sunday about a Michigan State basketball game the previous Saturday night-- describing comments supposedly made during the game by two NBA players who once played for Michigan State--was written the night before the game was even played. When the players failed to actually show for the game, canceling plans they had to attend, the episode became a public controversy. Albom had indeed interviewed the two players, but over the telephone, and days before the game.
In his column Albom wrote: "[B]oth [players] made it a point to fly in from wherever they were in their professional schedule just to sit together Saturday. Richardson, who earns millions, flew by private jet. Cleaves, who's on his fourth team in five years, bought a ticket and flew commercial."
One of the players, Jason Richardson, has since said that he watched the game on television, all alone, thousands of miles away, at home in San Francisco. In his column, Albom wrote of the two players: "They sat in the stands, in their MSU clothing, and rooted on their alma matter." Whether Richardson was wearing his "MSU clothing" in his own living room is yet to be determined.
Albom ended the column this way: "You looked around the stands Saturday, and you realized the truth: that you never know how right they are until you're the one saying it." Obviously, he couldn't have done so, in that the game had yet to be played.
What is striking to me about the incident is how very differently the Free Press and its rival, the Detroit News, characterized what occurred.
The Detroit News wrote about the incident this way:
"Mitch Albom, a nationally known sports columnist for the Detroit Free Press, apologized Thursday for fabricating several details in a Sunday account about the NCAA basketball tournament.
"But the apology did little to diffuse an outpouring of scorn from readers, newspaper staffers, industry observers and people calling or writing to sports talk radio stations and Internet sites."
Many readers of the Free Press only felt further betrayed by the initial tepid response of the newspaper when Albom fessed up to what he had done. That is illustrated in the stark contrast between how the Free Press and the News have written about the incident.
In an open letter to readers of Free Press, Carole Leigh Hutton, the newspaper's Publisher and Editor, sugar coated Albom's transgression this way, writing:
"As a newspaper, our credibility is paramount.
"On Thursday, we reported a Mitch Albom column in Sunday's editions misled readers by saying two ex-Michigan State basketball players were at Saturday night's Final Four game.
"They were not. The column was written Friday, for a section that was printed before the game was played."
"Albom was wrong to report that the athletes were there when the game had not yet been played. And the Free Press was wrong to publish it.
"Albom has built an unparalleled reputation in 20 years as a Free Press columnist. Still, the Free Press is undertaking a thorough review of the situation, as is our policy."
Even more unfortunate was the conduct of Tribune Media Services, which syndicates Albom's column. According to this account in Editor & Publisher, TMS sent an advisory to its client newspapers about only what it termed as a mere "factual inaccuracy" in Albom's column.
But the most brazen sugar coating of what had occurred was by Albom himself, in a personal note to his readers, published in the Free Press. Albom wrote:
"I made an assumption in a column this past weekend. It was a bad move. In a column written Friday for our Sunday newspaper, I assumed that what I had been told by Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson had indeed happened, that they had indeed flown to the Final Four, sat in the stands together rooting on Michigan State in Saturday's game. That was their plan. Both told me so in separate interviews. Because the column had to be filed on Friday afternoon, but appeared on Sunday, I wrote it in the past tense, as if it already had happened. [emphasis added]"
To hear Albom tell it, he engaged in nothing more serious than making some false assumptions. Hardly. And his note is itself confusing, perhaps purposefully so, by asserting that he assumed that "what [he] had been told" by the players "had indeed happened." Nobody obviously can assume something has happened until it actually does happen. Perhaps Albom just has a habitual problem differentiating the former and present tense.
Even later, Leigh Hutton, in speaking to the rival Detroit News, still couldn't bring herself to say just how horrible what her star columnist had done: "I'm furious we made such a ridiculous-- I don't even know what to call it-- furious we could put something in the paper that couldn't have happened [emphasis added]."
It is understandable that Leigh Hutton and the Free Press are reluctant to condemn their friend and colleague of twenty years. That is only human. It is more than possible that Mitch Albom is ordinarily a scrupulously ethical journalist, who has done just one very horrible thing. Leigh Hutton does not want to see a distinguished newspaper career end if this was a single episode. Albom's editors surely think that that is the case. David Robinson, a deputy managing editor of the Free Press, and who from 1985-1993 as the sports editor of the newspaper directly oversaw Albom's work, told E & P: "He [Albom] does his homework and talks to people. He's a good person who made a big mistake and owned up to it." Until evidence surfaces to the contrary that this was anything other than single incident-- and not a more distressing pattern of conduct-- Albom should at least be given the benefit of the doubt that he is not a recidivist.
But in this post Jayson Blair/Stephen Glass/Rathergate era, media organizations-- most importantly newspapers-- can no longer appear to look the other way when it comes to ethical transgressions. The public rightfully demands greater accountability.
In the meantime, the Free Press, has announced that its assistant managing editor for investigative reporting and a group of reporters will conduct an investigation of the Albom matter.
It is unclear whether the newspaper will investigate the single incident, or a more broad body of work by Albom. Leigh Hutton's public comments lend the impression that plans are now just to investigate the one column. (I have placed calls to Leigh Hutton, and John X. Miller, the public editor of the Free Press, to ask one or both of them about this. But both have so far been unavailable. When and if I do hear back, I will update this post as to what they had to say.)
The Free Press not only has an obligation to its readers, but also ironically, to Albom, to review a more broad range of Albom's work. If this was a single time incident, then even Albom himself would be well served by being able to reassure his readers that a comprehensive investigation determined that that was the case. Otherwise, suspicions will endlessly persist not just about him, but the Free Press as well. And the paper's initial parsing of words as to the seriousness of his transgression only further underscores that a thorough investigation is necessary to now reassure their readers. It should be standard conduct for news organizations to conduct a thorough investigation of a journalist's work if a serious ethical ethical infraction is discovered. Not to do otherwise only undercuts their credibility.
Two newspapers have already learned the lesson this the hard way. The Boston Globe admitted to misconduct by columnist Mike Barnicle-- only to be further embarrassed by later, more serious revelations of outright fabrication. (The Globe subsequently fired Barnicle.) USA Today originally told its readers that its former reporter Jack Kelley, had cut some ethical corners, but could not out right prove that he fabricated stories, after it had completed what it represented as an exhaustive review of the matter. Months later, the newspaper had to admit-- after a more thorough probe was conducted by an outside group of investigators-- that Kelley had fabricated stories and engaged in plagiarism on more than two dozen times over a decade; that senior editors of USA Today had turned a blind eye to recurrent credible complaints regarding his work; and reporters who had long suspected his fabrications were "intimidated" from speaking out.
In a letter to the Poynter Institute's Romenesko website, Eric Deggans, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times had to this say of the Albom controversy:
"Certainly, every editor at the newspaper [Free Press] had to know Albom's column was bogus. But they only admitted it when the players failed to attend the game and shattered their charade... [G]iven the circumstances, Albom isn't the only journalist at the Free Press who lied to readers to make this column happen.
"To save the newspaper's credibility, there needs to be more punishment for Albom and his enablers than an embarrassing correction and mea culpa column."
It is perhaps unfair to allege that "every editor" at the newspaper knew, but the column was obviously turned in and edited before the basketball game occurred. The more important issue, however, than whatever punishment is meted out, and to whom, is whether or not the newspaper will provide its readers with nothing less than a through and complete accounting as to what transpired.
Update, 9:43 P.M, April 9: John X. Miller, the public editor of the Free Press called late tonight to say that his newspaper is going to conduct a more broad review of Albom's past work than has been reported. What exactly that will entail, he told me, has yet to be determined: "We are going to look at more than the single column... We are going to examine others by him. We are still deciding which ones, of course. But the investigation will be broader than just that one." Albom also will not write his column for the newspaper while the investigation is underway, Miller said.
Update, 5:37 P.M., April 10: Miller, the public editor of the Free Press, says tonight that the investigation being conducted by his newspaper will also encompass which editors at the newspaper knew in advance that Albom wrote about a basketball game that had not been yet been played. He told me: "We have now decided to examine the editing the process as well. We will focus on this particular instance... whose hands the copy went through." According to Miller, "Ordinarily his column would have at least gone by the copy desk... and then have been looked at by other editors" as well. But for now, he says, he cannot speak to any more specifics.
Update 10:52 P.M, April 10: The Free Press continues to exacerbate Albom's horrible act by still continuing to sugar coat what he did. As I have written above, it would unfair for there to be a rush to judgment that Albom has has committed similar transgressions, without further evidence. But to continue to characterize what he has done as a mere mistake of judgment only will harm the newspaper's long term credibility. The fact is that Albom fabricated details of his column, something the Free Press' editor has yet to acknowledge.
Initially, John X. Miller, the Free Press' public editor declined to characterize Albom's transgression as a "fabrication", variously describing it to me as "bad judgment", an"error", and "multidimensional error."
Only in a subsequent conversation did Miller somewhat reluctantly tell me: "From my estimation of it, it was indeed a fabrication." Miller has also since told the Chicago Tribune: "It's not viewed as a minor infraction because in the minds of the editors, it was a fabrication."
As long overdue as those statements have been, another senior newsroom source at the Free Press has told me that the newspaper's editor, Carole Leigh Hutton, has not been too happy with statements strongly condemning Albom. One long time veteran of the newspaper told me: "She is still not getting this." Leigh Hutton herself has publicly only described the incident as a "ridiculous" mistake. The failure of a stronger public judgment as to what Albom did-- even if this was just one act-- has begun to harm not only her newspaper, but ironically, now even Albom, the person she is trying to protect. Not only has her tepid response created a backlash among many reporters in her own newsroom, but also in the larger journalistic community, as is evidenced by the emails and letters posted by newspaper professionals from across the country, on Poynter's Jim Romenesko website.
Perhaps the seriousness of the situation might finally be driven home for her in considering the comments of Randy Harvey, the Baltimore Sun's assistant managing editor for sports: "I don't see how they will have any choice at the end of their investigation but to fire Mitch and the editor or editors who read the column before it was published."
Mitch Albom, the best selling author and sports columnist for the Detroit Free Press, apologized on Thursday for fabricating portions of a column he wrote last week-- sort of.
Albom admitted that a column he wrote and published in the Free Press last Sunday about a Michigan State basketball game the previous Saturday night-- describing comments supposedly made during the game by two NBA players who once played for Michigan State--was written the night before the game was even played. When the players failed to actually show for the game, canceling plans they had to attend, the episode became a public controversy. Albom had indeed interviewed the two players, but over the telephone, and days before the game.
In his column Albom wrote: "[B]oth [players] made it a point to fly in from wherever they were in their professional schedule just to sit together Saturday. Richardson, who earns millions, flew by private jet. Cleaves, who's on his fourth team in five years, bought a ticket and flew commercial."
One of the players, Jason Richardson, has since said that he watched the game on television, all alone, thousands of miles away, at home in San Francisco. In his column, Albom wrote of the two players: "They sat in the stands, in their MSU clothing, and rooted on their alma matter." Whether Richardson was wearing his "MSU clothing" in his own living room is yet to be determined.
Albom ended the column this way: "You looked around the stands Saturday, and you realized the truth: that you never know how right they are until you're the one saying it." Obviously, he couldn't have done so, in that the game had yet to be played.
What is striking to me about the incident is how very differently the Free Press and its rival, the Detroit News, characterized what occurred.
The Detroit News wrote about the incident this way:
"Mitch Albom, a nationally known sports columnist for the Detroit Free Press, apologized Thursday for fabricating several details in a Sunday account about the NCAA basketball tournament.
"But the apology did little to diffuse an outpouring of scorn from readers, newspaper staffers, industry observers and people calling or writing to sports talk radio stations and Internet sites."
Many readers of the Free Press only felt further betrayed by the initial tepid response of the newspaper when Albom fessed up to what he had done. That is illustrated in the stark contrast between how the Free Press and the News have written about the incident.
In an open letter to readers of Free Press, Carole Leigh Hutton, the newspaper's Publisher and Editor, sugar coated Albom's transgression this way, writing:
"As a newspaper, our credibility is paramount.
"On Thursday, we reported a Mitch Albom column in Sunday's editions misled readers by saying two ex-Michigan State basketball players were at Saturday night's Final Four game.
"They were not. The column was written Friday, for a section that was printed before the game was played."
"Albom was wrong to report that the athletes were there when the game had not yet been played. And the Free Press was wrong to publish it.
"Albom has built an unparalleled reputation in 20 years as a Free Press columnist. Still, the Free Press is undertaking a thorough review of the situation, as is our policy."
Even more unfortunate was the conduct of Tribune Media Services, which syndicates Albom's column. According to this account in Editor & Publisher, TMS sent an advisory to its client newspapers about only what it termed as a mere "factual inaccuracy" in Albom's column.
But the most brazen sugar coating of what had occurred was by Albom himself, in a personal note to his readers, published in the Free Press. Albom wrote:
"I made an assumption in a column this past weekend. It was a bad move. In a column written Friday for our Sunday newspaper, I assumed that what I had been told by Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson had indeed happened, that they had indeed flown to the Final Four, sat in the stands together rooting on Michigan State in Saturday's game. That was their plan. Both told me so in separate interviews. Because the column had to be filed on Friday afternoon, but appeared on Sunday, I wrote it in the past tense, as if it already had happened. [emphasis added]"
To hear Albom tell it, he engaged in nothing more serious than making some false assumptions. Hardly. And his note is itself confusing, perhaps purposefully so, by asserting that he assumed that "what [he] had been told" by the players "had indeed happened." Nobody obviously can assume something has happened until it actually does happen. Perhaps Albom just has a habitual problem differentiating the former and present tense.
Even later, Leigh Hutton, in speaking to the rival Detroit News, still couldn't bring herself to say just how horrible what her star columnist had done: "I'm furious we made such a ridiculous-- I don't even know what to call it-- furious we could put something in the paper that couldn't have happened [emphasis added]."
It is understandable that Leigh Hutton and the Free Press are reluctant to condemn their friend and colleague of twenty years. That is only human. It is more than possible that Mitch Albom is ordinarily a scrupulously ethical journalist, who has done just one very horrible thing. Leigh Hutton does not want to see a distinguished newspaper career end if this was a single episode. Albom's editors surely think that that is the case. David Robinson, a deputy managing editor of the Free Press, and who from 1985-1993 as the sports editor of the newspaper directly oversaw Albom's work, told E & P: "He [Albom] does his homework and talks to people. He's a good person who made a big mistake and owned up to it." Until evidence surfaces to the contrary that this was anything other than single incident-- and not a more distressing pattern of conduct-- Albom should at least be given the benefit of the doubt that he is not a recidivist.
But in this post Jayson Blair/Stephen Glass/Rathergate era, media organizations-- most importantly newspapers-- can no longer appear to look the other way when it comes to ethical transgressions. The public rightfully demands greater accountability.
In the meantime, the Free Press, has announced that its assistant managing editor for investigative reporting and a group of reporters will conduct an investigation of the Albom matter.
It is unclear whether the newspaper will investigate the single incident, or a more broad body of work by Albom. Leigh Hutton's public comments lend the impression that plans are now just to investigate the one column. (I have placed calls to Leigh Hutton, and John X. Miller, the public editor of the Free Press, to ask one or both of them about this. But both have so far been unavailable. When and if I do hear back, I will update this post as to what they had to say.)
The Free Press not only has an obligation to its readers, but also ironically, to Albom, to review a more broad range of Albom's work. If this was a single time incident, then even Albom himself would be well served by being able to reassure his readers that a comprehensive investigation determined that that was the case. Otherwise, suspicions will endlessly persist not just about him, but the Free Press as well. And the paper's initial parsing of words as to the seriousness of his transgression only further underscores that a thorough investigation is necessary to now reassure their readers. It should be standard conduct for news organizations to conduct a thorough investigation of a journalist's work if a serious ethical ethical infraction is discovered. Not to do otherwise only undercuts their credibility.
Two newspapers have already learned the lesson this the hard way. The Boston Globe admitted to misconduct by columnist Mike Barnicle-- only to be further embarrassed by later, more serious revelations of outright fabrication. (The Globe subsequently fired Barnicle.) USA Today originally told its readers that its former reporter Jack Kelley, had cut some ethical corners, but could not out right prove that he fabricated stories, after it had completed what it represented as an exhaustive review of the matter. Months later, the newspaper had to admit-- after a more thorough probe was conducted by an outside group of investigators-- that Kelley had fabricated stories and engaged in plagiarism on more than two dozen times over a decade; that senior editors of USA Today had turned a blind eye to recurrent credible complaints regarding his work; and reporters who had long suspected his fabrications were "intimidated" from speaking out.
In a letter to the Poynter Institute's Romenesko website, Eric Deggans, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times had to this say of the Albom controversy:
"Certainly, every editor at the newspaper [Free Press] had to know Albom's column was bogus. But they only admitted it when the players failed to attend the game and shattered their charade... [G]iven the circumstances, Albom isn't the only journalist at the Free Press who lied to readers to make this column happen.
"To save the newspaper's credibility, there needs to be more punishment for Albom and his enablers than an embarrassing correction and mea culpa column."
It is perhaps unfair to allege that "every editor" at the newspaper knew, but the column was obviously turned in and edited before the basketball game occurred. The more important issue, however, than whatever punishment is meted out, and to whom, is whether or not the newspaper will provide its readers with nothing less than a through and complete accounting as to what transpired.
Update, 9:43 P.M, April 9: John X. Miller, the public editor of the Free Press called late tonight to say that his newspaper is going to conduct a more broad review of Albom's past work than has been reported. What exactly that will entail, he told me, has yet to be determined: "We are going to look at more than the single column... We are going to examine others by him. We are still deciding which ones, of course. But the investigation will be broader than just that one." Albom also will not write his column for the newspaper while the investigation is underway, Miller said.
Update, 5:37 P.M., April 10: Miller, the public editor of the Free Press, says tonight that the investigation being conducted by his newspaper will also encompass which editors at the newspaper knew in advance that Albom wrote about a basketball game that had not been yet been played. He told me: "We have now decided to examine the editing the process as well. We will focus on this particular instance... whose hands the copy went through." According to Miller, "Ordinarily his column would have at least gone by the copy desk... and then have been looked at by other editors" as well. But for now, he says, he cannot speak to any more specifics.
Update 10:52 P.M, April 10: The Free Press continues to exacerbate Albom's horrible act by still continuing to sugar coat what he did. As I have written above, it would unfair for there to be a rush to judgment that Albom has has committed similar transgressions, without further evidence. But to continue to characterize what he has done as a mere mistake of judgment only will harm the newspaper's long term credibility. The fact is that Albom fabricated details of his column, something the Free Press' editor has yet to acknowledge.
Initially, John X. Miller, the Free Press' public editor declined to characterize Albom's transgression as a "fabrication", variously describing it to me as "bad judgment", an"error", and "multidimensional error."
Only in a subsequent conversation did Miller somewhat reluctantly tell me: "From my estimation of it, it was indeed a fabrication." Miller has also since told the Chicago Tribune: "It's not viewed as a minor infraction because in the minds of the editors, it was a fabrication."
As long overdue as those statements have been, another senior newsroom source at the Free Press has told me that the newspaper's editor, Carole Leigh Hutton, has not been too happy with statements strongly condemning Albom. One long time veteran of the newspaper told me: "She is still not getting this." Leigh Hutton herself has publicly only described the incident as a "ridiculous" mistake. The failure of a stronger public judgment as to what Albom did-- even if this was just one act-- has begun to harm not only her newspaper, but ironically, now even Albom, the person she is trying to protect. Not only has her tepid response created a backlash among many reporters in her own newsroom, but also in the larger journalistic community, as is evidenced by the emails and letters posted by newspaper professionals from across the country, on Poynter's Jim Romenesko website.
Perhaps the seriousness of the situation might finally be driven home for her in considering the comments of Randy Harvey, the Baltimore Sun's assistant managing editor for sports: "I don't see how they will have any choice at the end of their investigation but to fire Mitch and the editor or editors who read the column before it was published."
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Novak News
Did Novak co-operate with the grand jury, and if he did, what did he say?
I will have the story for you, my six readers, sometime soon... but make no promises yet exactly when, because, unlike most bloggers, I actually have phone calls to make, sources to double check with, and people to call for comment... That last part is going to be pleasant. Calling Novak for comment, that is.
The story will be detailed and definitive. But I won't post it until I am absolutely sure of everything that I have.
So check back here sometime soon.
I will have the story for you, my six readers, sometime soon... but make no promises yet exactly when, because, unlike most bloggers, I actually have phone calls to make, sources to double check with, and people to call for comment... That last part is going to be pleasant. Calling Novak for comment, that is.
The story will be detailed and definitive. But I won't post it until I am absolutely sure of everything that I have.
So check back here sometime soon.
Plame Game Over... Finally, My Valerie Plame Grand Jury Story is Out....
I broke some news this very morning as to what the Plame grand jury has been up to. I might be disciplined by the bloggers ethics board... for breaking news.
Here on the American Prospect Online Edition, I wrote:
"The special prosecutor investigating whether any Bush administration official may have violated federal law by leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, recently informed a federal court that his investigation has been `for all practical purposes complete' since Oct. 2004.
"The disclosure, by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, that he completed virtually aspects of his federal grand jury as long as six months ago was made in paperspapers the prosecutor filed in court on March 22. Despite the fact that the filing has been on the public record since then, it has previously been unreported."
I will update the story here on my blog soon.
Among those writing or commenting on this today are Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post.com. Tom Brune of Newsday has written a story. And Jim Romenesko plays the story big time on mediagossip.com. Editor & Publisher has also posted a story on their website. Tom Grieve also features my TAP story in Salon's war room.
Here on the American Prospect Online Edition, I wrote:
"The special prosecutor investigating whether any Bush administration official may have violated federal law by leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, recently informed a federal court that his investigation has been `for all practical purposes complete' since Oct. 2004.
"The disclosure, by the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, that he completed virtually aspects of his federal grand jury as long as six months ago was made in paperspapers the prosecutor filed in court on March 22. Despite the fact that the filing has been on the public record since then, it has previously been unreported."
I will update the story here on my blog soon.
Among those writing or commenting on this today are Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post.com. Tom Brune of Newsday has written a story. And Jim Romenesko plays the story big time on mediagossip.com. Editor & Publisher has also posted a story on their website. Tom Grieve also features my TAP story in Salon's war room.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
News on the Plame Grand Jury Right Here... Very Soon.
I am going to soon break some news on the Plame grand jury investigation very soon....
But in the meantime, here are some other newsworthy articles regarding the various parties to the entire affair:
In the Nation, Russ Baker still finds wanting the journalism of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who has been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify before the Plame grand jury. Baker writes:
"The editorial page of the New York Times recently led with a justifiably outraged condemnation of George W. Bush's choice for United Nations ambassador-- John Bolton, a famously outspoken anti-UN and antimultilateral ideologue. How ironic, then, that the Times's news editors had previously dispatched to the UN a reporter tight with the same unilateralist clique-- a reporter who has written about alleged wrongdoing at the UN in such exaggerated way as to cast the organization and its leadership as almost beyond redemption."
Ouch. Whether of not Baker makes the case, I will proffer absolutely no opinion of my own. (What unblogger like behavior on my part!) Read for yourself and decide. Indeed, I am considering that the slogan for my blog should be: I blog, you decide.
Another profile of Judith Miller can be found here. Depending on your vantage point, it is either a more evenhanded portrait than the person portrayed in the Nation piece, or another example of a story so devoted to the conventions of evenhanded news reporting that it fails to enlighten us in any meaningful way. I take no position myself. As the slogan here is: I blog, you decide.
(The rapidity of blogs?!: Only moments ago (and two paragraphs prior), I was considering adopting the phrase "I blog, you decide" for my blog" and now I actually have. What a wondrous medium!)
William E. Jackson, in Editor & Publisher, also profiles Miller, expressing some harsh judgments, writing: "What is Miller's public campaign-- waged all across the country-- all about, other than a transparent attempt to rehabilitate her damaged reputation as a journalist."He also charges that Miller has cynically "attempted to the tie the controversy over her WMD reporting to her current court struggles." Once again, I blog , but you decide.
In a New York Sun article on the misdemeanor guilty plea of former Clinton administration national security advisor Samuel Berger, Bruce Fein, a former aide to then Attorney General Ed Meese during the Reagan administration, and about as right-wing person as one can be, (that was a reference to Fein, not the Sun), predicts that the guilty plea by Berger will increase the pressure for indictments to be brought in the Plame case. The leak of Plame's name, Fein said "was monstrous compared to the triviality of Berger." The special counsel in the Plame case, Fein added, will now be "pushed all the harder to come up with an indictment."
Justice would be done if whoever leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak were to be finally held unaccountable. But, as of now, that unfortunately appears more likely something that is not going to happen.
In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, Randall D. Eliason, a former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia argues his brief on behalf of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. As Eliason sees it, "editorial pages and commentators" have been unfairly "charging that the prosecutor is misguided and overzealous, a modern-day Inspector Javert."
Eliason is exactly right on the mark, in explaining why Fitzgerald, even if you strongly disagree with the course he has taken, has been so intent to obtain the testimony of reporters:
"If someone leaked disclosed classified information to a reporter, there are only two likely witnesses, the parties to that conversation. Even the identity of the leaker is known, he or she is almost certainly will assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. That the leaves the reporter as the sole available witness to a possible federal crime...
"Given these facts, the prosecutor has two options; subpoena the reporters to testify, or fold up the tent and go home."
Finally, do reporters have an unqualified privilege under the law not to reveal their confidential sources? The best story on the Web that I could find on this subject was this article, which appeared in Slate, and was written by Stephen Bates. The writer is identified at the bottom of the article as the literary editor of the Wilson Quarterly. Not mentioned is the fact that Bates once worked as an associate Independent Counsel for Kenneth W. Starr. I don't make note of that fact in some dark and Manichean-Sidney Blumenthal manner, but rather simply because it would be interesting to hear what Bates has to say as to how his experience working for Starr might have impacted his thinking today as to whether reporters do or do not have privilege. I would hope that Bates would write that story for Slate. Or, if he was interested, I will give him the space here on my blog... I don't know if I could pay him well. (I know he has heard that line from editors before, about not paying him well, as has every writer... But this is a blog, after all.) Bates is a prolific and thoughtful writer, and before anyone attempts to pigeonhole him because of his work for Starr, they should consider the fact that he once worked as an assistant to Lawrence Tribe at Harvard.
But in the meantime, here are some other newsworthy articles regarding the various parties to the entire affair:
In the Nation, Russ Baker still finds wanting the journalism of New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who has been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify before the Plame grand jury. Baker writes:
"The editorial page of the New York Times recently led with a justifiably outraged condemnation of George W. Bush's choice for United Nations ambassador-- John Bolton, a famously outspoken anti-UN and antimultilateral ideologue. How ironic, then, that the Times's news editors had previously dispatched to the UN a reporter tight with the same unilateralist clique-- a reporter who has written about alleged wrongdoing at the UN in such exaggerated way as to cast the organization and its leadership as almost beyond redemption."
Ouch. Whether of not Baker makes the case, I will proffer absolutely no opinion of my own. (What unblogger like behavior on my part!) Read for yourself and decide. Indeed, I am considering that the slogan for my blog should be: I blog, you decide.
Another profile of Judith Miller can be found here. Depending on your vantage point, it is either a more evenhanded portrait than the person portrayed in the Nation piece, or another example of a story so devoted to the conventions of evenhanded news reporting that it fails to enlighten us in any meaningful way. I take no position myself. As the slogan here is: I blog, you decide.
(The rapidity of blogs?!: Only moments ago (and two paragraphs prior), I was considering adopting the phrase "I blog, you decide" for my blog" and now I actually have. What a wondrous medium!)
William E. Jackson, in Editor & Publisher, also profiles Miller, expressing some harsh judgments, writing: "What is Miller's public campaign-- waged all across the country-- all about, other than a transparent attempt to rehabilitate her damaged reputation as a journalist."He also charges that Miller has cynically "attempted to the tie the controversy over her WMD reporting to her current court struggles." Once again, I blog , but you decide.
In a New York Sun article on the misdemeanor guilty plea of former Clinton administration national security advisor Samuel Berger, Bruce Fein, a former aide to then Attorney General Ed Meese during the Reagan administration, and about as right-wing person as one can be, (that was a reference to Fein, not the Sun), predicts that the guilty plea by Berger will increase the pressure for indictments to be brought in the Plame case. The leak of Plame's name, Fein said "was monstrous compared to the triviality of Berger." The special counsel in the Plame case, Fein added, will now be "pushed all the harder to come up with an indictment."
Justice would be done if whoever leaked Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak were to be finally held unaccountable. But, as of now, that unfortunately appears more likely something that is not going to happen.
In an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, Randall D. Eliason, a former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Columbia argues his brief on behalf of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. As Eliason sees it, "editorial pages and commentators" have been unfairly "charging that the prosecutor is misguided and overzealous, a modern-day Inspector Javert."
Eliason is exactly right on the mark, in explaining why Fitzgerald, even if you strongly disagree with the course he has taken, has been so intent to obtain the testimony of reporters:
"If someone leaked disclosed classified information to a reporter, there are only two likely witnesses, the parties to that conversation. Even the identity of the leaker is known, he or she is almost certainly will assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. That the leaves the reporter as the sole available witness to a possible federal crime...
"Given these facts, the prosecutor has two options; subpoena the reporters to testify, or fold up the tent and go home."
Finally, do reporters have an unqualified privilege under the law not to reveal their confidential sources? The best story on the Web that I could find on this subject was this article, which appeared in Slate, and was written by Stephen Bates. The writer is identified at the bottom of the article as the literary editor of the Wilson Quarterly. Not mentioned is the fact that Bates once worked as an associate Independent Counsel for Kenneth W. Starr. I don't make note of that fact in some dark and Manichean-Sidney Blumenthal manner, but rather simply because it would be interesting to hear what Bates has to say as to how his experience working for Starr might have impacted his thinking today as to whether reporters do or do not have privilege. I would hope that Bates would write that story for Slate. Or, if he was interested, I will give him the space here on my blog... I don't know if I could pay him well. (I know he has heard that line from editors before, about not paying him well, as has every writer... But this is a blog, after all.) Bates is a prolific and thoughtful writer, and before anyone attempts to pigeonhole him because of his work for Starr, they should consider the fact that he once worked as an assistant to Lawrence Tribe at Harvard.
News about the Plame Investigation
At a talk at the Yale Law School, Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper, who along with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has been found to be in contempt of court for refusing to testify before the Valerie Plame grand jury, seems hastened by the experience.
He had this to say: "Journalists need to be humble when asking for privileges. We're basically asking for exemption from the law. We're asking for something farmers, businessmen don't have... We're asking for a big thing; it would behoove a journalist to ask for it with humility rather than arrogance."
Eloquently said. But there is still a larger point to be made: The public is not with us (journalists) regarding First amendment privileges as it once was. And there are good reasons that that is the case:
The public will only stand with us as long as we put the public interest ahead of our personal interest. They have understood the necessity of source confidentiality when they have viewed the press as a bulwark against government wrongdoing. And they will support us if we are seen to be advancing the public interest instead of the interests of ourselves or our sources.
The reason that the public has not been sympathetic to those who have become embroiled in the Novak case, has been because Novak was not engaging in his First amendment privileges to expose governmental wrongdoing, but rather exploiting those privileges in furtherance of governmental wrongdoing. And he was advancing his own ideological interest and that of his sources, instead of that of the public when he outed Valerie Plame as CIA operative. Novak did harm not only to Plame but also to ongoing intelligence operations essential to the war on terrorism. And he did monumental harm to his own profession.
Cooper has been quoted in Vanity Fair and elsewhere as being dismayed by the fact that Novak has not expressed any sympathy for his plight. But the larger issue is why Cooper and other journalists have not been more outspoken about wrongdoing in their own profession. It should not be empathy he should desire from Novak but rather journalistic propriety.
It is perhaps not unrelated that as journalistic ethics have eroded, First Amendment privileges have eroded as well. Is it in that manner that Novak might, in part, be responsible for the plight of Cooper and other journalists. But it has been Cooper's too-long own silence and that of others in our profession about journalistic misconduct, such as that of Novak's, that is responsible for his plight as well.
As journalists, we need to be humble in asking for special privileges under the law, and otherwise, but our humility is only the very first way to demonstrate that we are so deserving.
He had this to say: "Journalists need to be humble when asking for privileges. We're basically asking for exemption from the law. We're asking for something farmers, businessmen don't have... We're asking for a big thing; it would behoove a journalist to ask for it with humility rather than arrogance."
Eloquently said. But there is still a larger point to be made: The public is not with us (journalists) regarding First amendment privileges as it once was. And there are good reasons that that is the case:
The public will only stand with us as long as we put the public interest ahead of our personal interest. They have understood the necessity of source confidentiality when they have viewed the press as a bulwark against government wrongdoing. And they will support us if we are seen to be advancing the public interest instead of the interests of ourselves or our sources.
The reason that the public has not been sympathetic to those who have become embroiled in the Novak case, has been because Novak was not engaging in his First amendment privileges to expose governmental wrongdoing, but rather exploiting those privileges in furtherance of governmental wrongdoing. And he was advancing his own ideological interest and that of his sources, instead of that of the public when he outed Valerie Plame as CIA operative. Novak did harm not only to Plame but also to ongoing intelligence operations essential to the war on terrorism. And he did monumental harm to his own profession.
Cooper has been quoted in Vanity Fair and elsewhere as being dismayed by the fact that Novak has not expressed any sympathy for his plight. But the larger issue is why Cooper and other journalists have not been more outspoken about wrongdoing in their own profession. It should not be empathy he should desire from Novak but rather journalistic propriety.
It is perhaps not unrelated that as journalistic ethics have eroded, First Amendment privileges have eroded as well. Is it in that manner that Novak might, in part, be responsible for the plight of Cooper and other journalists. But it has been Cooper's too-long own silence and that of others in our profession about journalistic misconduct, such as that of Novak's, that is responsible for his plight as well.
As journalists, we need to be humble in asking for special privileges under the law, and otherwise, but our humility is only the very first way to demonstrate that we are so deserving.
Here is an exceptional profile of John Bolton, as his nomiation goes forward as Ambassador to the United States, by Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe. (Full disclosure: I sometimes write for the Globe, and have done so since 1986.) For the most comprehensive compendium of information on the Bolton nomination, one should check out this post on Laura Rozen's war and piece blog.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
The presidential commission that is investigating the intelligence failures that lead up to our going to war with Saddam Hussein is due out later this morning. While most major newspapers, such as the New York Times and Washington Post have been previewing the recommendations of the commission, Knight Ridder's Washington bureau has instead turned out a story providing new details about a questionable CIA informant code-named "Curveball".
An Iraqi chemical engineer, "Curveball" claimed to have helped design mobile biological-warfare facilities for Saddam Hussein. The tale has long since been shown to be a canard, but not before the information was cited by the Bush administration as a pretext for war.
Curveball's claims were cited in a Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. They were also central to the false conclusions of a subsequent National Intelligence Estimate that Saddam had a chemical weapons capability. A number of Senators and Congressmen have since said they would have not voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew that the claims in the NIE were false.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has already thoroughly documented how "Curveball"'s fictions helped lead the country on the path to war. Some other background information on "Curveball" is contained in this American Prospect commentary I wrote about the Senate report. The Senate report, in its entirety, can also be found online.
Update, 8:45 P.M., April 3
Curveball makes the big time! Who would have ever thought? I knew if I kept writing about himself enough... Sure enough, Maureen Dowd devotes her entire column to him today. And to think, I wrote about him way back in the day. Not really favorable press. considering her column is headlined "Curveball the Goofball". But that goes with the territory of making the big time.
An Iraqi chemical engineer, "Curveball" claimed to have helped design mobile biological-warfare facilities for Saddam Hussein. The tale has long since been shown to be a canard, but not before the information was cited by the Bush administration as a pretext for war.
Curveball's claims were cited in a Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. They were also central to the false conclusions of a subsequent National Intelligence Estimate that Saddam had a chemical weapons capability. A number of Senators and Congressmen have since said they would have not voted to authorize Bush to go to war if they knew that the claims in the NIE were false.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has already thoroughly documented how "Curveball"'s fictions helped lead the country on the path to war. Some other background information on "Curveball" is contained in this American Prospect commentary I wrote about the Senate report. The Senate report, in its entirety, can also be found online.
Update, 8:45 P.M., April 3
Curveball makes the big time! Who would have ever thought? I knew if I kept writing about himself enough... Sure enough, Maureen Dowd devotes her entire column to him today. And to think, I wrote about him way back in the day. Not really favorable press. considering her column is headlined "Curveball the Goofball". But that goes with the territory of making the big time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
