Adrift in the ethical abyss...
I watched Andrea Mitchell sub in for Chris Mathews on Hardball tongight. She was blathering on about the Plame case. The focus of the discussion was whether or not journalists should be prosecuted for protecting their sources in the face of federal prosecution. It is a an indicator of the sorry state of US media that journalists seem to be discussing Judith Miller's and and Mathew Cooper's "resistance" to the federal prosecutor instead of the real issue: Some coward in the Whitehouse deliberately outed a working United States CIA Operative because her husband said the wrong thing.
I'm sorry, but treason trumps journalistic rights. Journalists ought to know the difference. Bob Novak certainly should have known the difference. Judith Miller should know the difference. Matt Cooper should know the difference. We should all know the difference. Journalists are afforded the right to gather information anonymously and publish it in order to expose corruption. They do not get to do it to do something entirely corrupt in and of itself.
This is not the case of an investigative reporter funneling key whistleblower information to the public to save lives or money. This is an act where a journalist published secret information that caused real damage to US security in the war on terror - even if it is difficult to quantify that damage. If a digruntled "source" leaked classified information about troop movements in Iraq, or gave information about a security hole in the Pentagon's IT infrastructure to a reporter, and that reporter was stupid enough to publish it - would we then hold that reporter unaccountable for the act? No we would not. And we should not.
Now I understand that neither Miller, Cooper, even Novak, may have known that the information given them was as damaging as it turned out to be. But now we know. And the source certainly knew as the words flew across his or her lips. All three of them should be sprinting to the door of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and begging to testify. It's the honorable thing to do.
As for the rest of the media, have you forgotten what your job is? A gentle reminder from one of your best customers:
Go find out who exposed Valerie Plame. Publish that name. Go to jail protecting that source.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 1:52 AM |
| 
6 Comments:
By order of Supreme Court, these journalists bowed down to their new, uncontested president. By order of Supreme Court, these journalists refuse to release incriminating evidence that could reflect poorly on said president.
If they think their cause is so righteous, let them go to jail. I get the feeling sympathy would be minimal and limited to those so enthralled with this administration that not even criminal activity could sway their devotion.
Wow I am in 100% agreement with Chris on this one.
Dave
Well, I'm largely in agreement with Chris on this one. He makes some assuptions that I don't think have been substantiated tho.
1. The leak came from the whitehouse. reason: most consumers of intel product are not privy to methods or sources. These are compartmentalized and with good reason. Source leaks are much more likely to come from the analysis types, CIA, DIA, NSA etc. The admin and whitehouse wouldn't get raw intel (wouldn't want it, and probably couldn't get it even if they did.)
2. The leak was retaliation. reason: the guy is a former ambassador and retired. How is a book deal and a big settlement retailiation? Giving up a low level career as a collector isn't exactly like James Bond giving up his license to kill. If they wanted to punish him they could have posted her to Botswanna or Outer Mongolia.
3. Exposing Plame caused "real damage" to the war effort. reason: there's no evidence Plame was really a producer of anything (nor should there be) but you really have to question the judgement of any intel asset that gets involved with a diplomat. That sort of connection effectively ends any real chance of being covert. She ended her career when she hooked up with him. It really couldn't get more dead.
Where Chris is right,
1. Certainly the 4th estate has some responsibility as well rights.
2. Its the job of the free press to be critical of the government.
3. All involved should be cooperating with the investigation.
4. Certainly the rest of the msm has been too content to keep telling the Rove story rather than find out what really happened.
-Censored
It is the job of a free press to tell the whole truth, free of interference from the goverment or other powerful forces.
Sadly most of the press fails on the whole truth part. We see far too much agenda based reporting with selective use of the truth.
Dave
While that's true Dave, you'll never reach consensus on what's an important fact to include.
Better to have a open system where every bias is free to express itself, but admits its bias.
-Censored
Sadly we far too often see such lousy reporting that both the reporters and the editors should be ashamed that they actually publish the junk. The current Plamegate is a classic example, article after article completely mischaractizing and mislead in an attempt to smear Bush and/or Rove.
Dave
Post a Comment
<< Home