The Washington Post editorial board chimes in with a lot of hooey about Bob Woodward’s total disgrace, but it all comes down to this:
That assertion is 99% false. What is the 1%? The one percent is merely the fact that the outing of sources in the Plame case may have the indirect effect of discouraging some whistleblowers. It shouldn’t, but it might.
Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and other unnamed sources in the Plame investigation did not do the public any service in leaking the identity of an undercover CIA officer. The investigation has cost a lot of money. It has caused intense resentment within the intelligence community. It served to distort the public debate rather than to clarify it. Protecting these sources does not serve the public interest. It amounts to obstruction of justice.
The media should abide by a simple rule when using confidential sources. Is the source precluded from going on the record through fear of retaliation? Or are the just afraid of taking accountability for their actions?
In the case of Mark Felt, the famous Deep Throat, he may have had selfish or petty reasons for leaking to Bob Woodward. But he also knew that he would lose his job and his access if he went on the record. Woodward was fully justified in keeping the source and his ulterior motives secret. But this is not the case in the Plame investigation. Woodward has allowed essential information in this investigation to remain secret from the prosecutor, from his editors, from the reporters at his paper that were covering the story, and he continues to keep this information from the public.
Not only that, but he has gone the extra mile to diminish the importance of the investigation at the same time he was obstructing it.
The Washington Post should be asking why Woodward chose to pressure his source to come forward after Libby was indicted. Fitzgerald should be asking whether Woodward’s public proclamations were signals to potential targets that he would be a friendly witness. Woodward’s hands are not clean and his relationship with the Washington Post should be severed. His actions represent a total breach of ethics and trust. They may even constitute a crime.
The level of sheer corruption in the NYT and WaPo newsrooms is astounding.
If I were a foreign gov’t. I’d insert soemone in their newsrooms, assumedly to learn all US secrets.
he didn’t just fail to tell his editor. He failed to tell the people. He preferred to feather his own bed, his career, while deluding the public in the belief that there was nothing more to know, and at a minimum, he obstructed justice and covered up a felony….not just by his silence. He wasn’t silent…he put out plenty of innuendo.
The issue isn’t that he lied. The issue is that he deceived. They are different. Like the Bush administration, he may not have lied but he certainly deceived. And in the fraud laws, the issue is whether the hearer has been deceived by what he heard, not whether the speaker has told a falsehood.
Of course, he may be lying even now. Maybe he had a seance with CIA Director Casey.
Can’t help but wonder what criminal legislation would apply, conspiracy, maybe RICO…hell, I dunno, but something should.
Interesting point, who’s to say they haven’t? Not necessarily to learn, but to influence public opinion. A not unlikely scenario, and one which may be significantly closer to fact than fiction.
Peace
I so agree with you! Woodward is just a patsy of this administration like so many in the DC circuit are in the press. His integrity is at question and always has been, IMHO. Makes me wonder just how money he made from this administration excluding his book royalties, like kickbacks or bribery money
Or Haliburton stock?
Let me ask a question regardless if it applies here specifically.
If Woodward was interviewing for a book and had that information disclosed to him earlier as it appears but it was not intended to go further and Woodward did not further disclose it, should that still be as important?
If the reason and disclosure was unrelated to the other events?
My take on that is that once the business with the NYT came to a head he had a responsibility to confidentially let his editor know what was going on and what he knew (other than the name of the person). Had he done so at the time he would not now be in a position of so blatantly divided loyalties.
No argument on that point. There were seperate projects he was working on in the book and the paper?
Important for what? Judging Woodward’s behavior?
What is most damning is not that Woodward did not volunteer the information to the prosecutor. What is most damning is a combination of two things.
First, he didn’t give his editor essential information he needed to understand the scandal and help him direct the paper’s investigation.
And second, that he took it upon himself to defend the people that leaked this information.
The first part indicates consciousness of guilt, and the second part indicates no ethics whatsoever.
Taken together, this is highly suspicious behavior, as is his explanation that he encouraged the source to come forward. Why? So he could be publicly disgraced and hauled before a grand jury? Wasn’t he trying to avoid being hauled before a grand jury?
I agree with most of that especially not keeping the editor aware of the involvement. I think Woodward’s actions have been completely wrong but I was looking at an issue within all of this.
Woodward probably urged his source to come forward, if that’s true, to keep himself out of trouble. The pressure came on both of them as new information came out from somewhere.
I guess what I was asking is if it didn’t come up in direct testimony and it wasn’t a disclosure to further an illegitimate agenda but was coincidentally the same information why would he be compelled to offer that up?
I’m not defending Woodward but discussing a hypothetical issue.
I don’t know.
I mean, it’s interesting to speculate. But…
Let’s say the source is Hadley. And let’s say that Woodward is good friends with Libby and he is appalled that he is going down alone for this.
He calls Hadley and says “What the fuck, Steve? How can you just stand there and let Libby take the fall for this?”
In other words, out of loyalty to Libby, Woodward shames Hadley into confessing.
I mean, that is about the only way that Woodward’s version stands up.
In Libby’s case, Fitz rattled off several blatant lies of Libby that contradicted incidents that happened just the week before.
Going by what you posed, we would have to assume that Woodward knew but Libby was completely unaware of Hadley’s disclosure to Woodward. If Libby was aware of that earlier disclosure why wouldn’t he get that out somehow, considering what was at stake? I would think Libby’s actions were a deliberate protection of someone. Would Hadley be worth protecting? I wouldn’t think so. That implies someone or some evidence more important to protect from prosecution.
Back to the hypothetical, it’s all based on the information being the same out of coincidence and not as pertinent to the investigation. It would only be a technical ‘gotcha’ on being the actual first but isolated in intent and use.
What if the person who disclosed the information was bush himself? That would be a reason why Woodward did not even tell his editors.
What an apt and cruel name for a domestic disinformation campaign using CIA plants on the reporting staffs of newspapers. Operation Mockingbird.
Supposedly the Church Commission put an end to Operation Mockingbird in the mid seventies, but some accounts have it that George Herbert Walker Bush, then head of the CIA, managed to negotiate for the mere appearance of an end.
Woodward’s close associations among the back-channelers and information hoarders and alternate-government getaways make him more recognizable as a plant than as a muckraker.
Woodward, by keeping this information from his editor, especially after the business with the NYT, has shown that his loyalties do not lie with the newspaper but with the Administration.
He too will be gone, one way or another, in 2 weeks or so. You heard it here first.
It’s called insubordination, folks, and no hierarchical organization can tolerate it – if the WaPo ignored this from Woodward, they’d be inviting more of the same behavior from other staffers, and the editors would have bedlam on their hands.
If the editor doesn’t do it, the publisher should. It’s not even a matter of politics. It’s a matter of what constitutes acceptable behavior in such a workplace. If a reporter was cozy with the Clinton administration to the point that (s)he covered up things for them then (s)he should have gotten identical treatment.
If I was the editor he’d have been fired that day, or I’d have gone to the publisher and said “Keeping him puts me in an untenable situation, so if you’re intent on that, I’m leaving.”
Of course, the publisher probably would have given me the only acceptable response when so challenged: “I’m sorry you feel that way; it’s been good working with you.” But then he’d still have to fire Woodward, too.
Imagine the magnitude of importance in the issue that is still unseen for at least two career journalists to risk their career and reputation to protect. That’s one helluva high price.
Then it may not be the magnitude of the importance of the issue. Price, perhaps?
The price is a lucrative career or retirement package from the global group that controls all of it.
Wondering: Does the “retirement package” include being the official spokesperson/press agent for the global group?
That’s one way but the possibilities are shown to be unlimited. There seems to be no respect or consideration of conflict of interest. Actually, it seems to be rewarded with extra enthusiasm.
The private group hires those who have been cooperative in helping them secure legislation, funding, contracts, and other beneficial lines of interest.
If we followed the absurd, fractured logic that WaPo uses to cover it’s own negligence and the aggressive duplicity of it’s main celebrity journalist, then any governmetal criminal leaker could simply protect himself from prosecution by bvecoming a confidential source to a complying reporter.
Just imagine if law enforcement worked this way. A murderer, if by disclosing something to an investigator he implicates himself in a crime, the investigator, (so goes WaPo logic), wouldn’t be able to disclose the fact.
It seems to me there’s a fairly simple way to define the parameters that govern the important aspects of the source-confidentiality protections. If the act of disclosure by a source is itself the primary focus of an investigation, if there is no indication that the source is actually revealing something of benefit to the public interest but that the act of disclosure by itself is suspect, then any journalist should be willing to reveal that source to investigators.
If we were back in the Watergate affair, clearly Mark Felt had other motives for disclosing what he did, andclearlyhe was breaking the law in certain instances in revealing much of what he did. But, he was exposing massive criminality in the executive branch and this was in the public interest to such an extent that it easily trumped the smaller offense of Felt himself breaking those far lesser laws. With the Plame disclosure, Plame’s outing was completely gratuitous; it had no intrinsic value to the public in and of itself. In fact, her status in the CIA has virtually no relevance to the substance of her husband’s report, and even if it were true that she “got him the job”, so to speak, even this is irrelevant to the substantive case Wilson made. In short, there was absolutely no public benefit to be derived by the disclosure of her name.
This is why the leakers are primary criminals, rather than simple disclosers of information. Their disclosures were ilegal and there was no public benefit to the criminal release of an NOC officers identity.
IMHO, Woodward has proven himself to be part of the criminal conspiracy rather than an independent player from the world of journalism. His betrayal in many ways is even worse than Miller’s; after all, he was once a hero to millions and has now betrayed that legacy in the most shameful way. Miller never enjoyed such status in her entire career, and as such has not surprised so many by her duplicity and arogance.
The code of protecting the source is exactly why they chose this method. It’s the same for having it so convoluted with multiple sources nearly simultaneously to make it near impossible to identify the first one for prosecution.
Now, that’s truly an authentic conspiracy.
My thoughts are identical to yours on this.
I found this paragraph in a great article (in my opinion) and it gives me encouragement that the ones in positions of power can see that difference too.
emphasis mine
Great article.
A commenter here named Arcturus posted this link to a terrific interview with Daniel Ellsberg. (The interview starts at about 7 min, 5 sec. into the broadcast.
I agree with pretty much all that Ellsberg says, including his view that the people runnng the
Bush regime are pursuing a police state here at home in the US.
Thanks for that link. I haven’t seen that yet but look forward to it.
Your comment about the police state brings the discussion back to my hypothetical questions here about Woodward, the leak source timing and future implications.
I believe the sharp, negative assessments here of Woodward’s knowledge and behavior are accurate. He had to have known better or been a part of this early on. It appears that he sacrificed his reputation for a greater cause whether it’s true or not.
With the combination of events and the administration’s push earlier for a measure of shield law it sets the stage for a future brand of state sanctioned journalist.
The need for a MSM respected author to maintain classified status for sensitive information is a dangerous precedent.
The group we’re dealing with are lifelong dedicated ideologues who believe they are gifted with an awareness other don’t have. This unfortunate perspective also gives them the extra perceived responsibility to act for what they feel is in the best interest of all of us. I’m sure they feel a police state is the best way to protect us from our own ignorance. I think not.
This link here is to a pretty good summary of the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird”, whick was exposed by Bernstein back in the 70’s.
This all goes to the central question about which reporters are ultimately serving whom, the public it’s their true job to serve, or covert masters whose identities they keep comcealed.
I want to clarify or add to the term state sanctioned journalist to more closely describe the historian of record. This is probably worthy of it’s own diary. The common references by this administration to history being their judge, creating a new history and the long term dedication seem to set up the historian as a crucial tool.
I wonder what version of the history textbooks will be used in the schools?
As others have noted, the clear difference is that the dissemination of information in this case regarding Valerie Plame’s identity CONSTITUTED the crime. It wasn’t information supplied REGARDING a crime or an alleged crime. The act of divulging the information was the crime; therefore, the recipients of the information became witnesses to the commission of a crime.
Now, one could argue that the recipients of the information wouldn’t necessarily know it was a crime if they didn’t know that the information was confidential. But it Bob Woodward’s case, he knew for over two years that the information he had received was confidential and, therefore, constituted a crime. Regardless of his willingness – or unwillingness – to divulge the identity of his source, he knew that a crime had been committed and that he was a witness witholding evidence of that crime. In theory, I believe he could be charged with knowingly aiding and abetting a criminal act by not reporting it to authorities.
I once regarded Bob Woodward as a hero of a generation of young people – including myself – for exposing the crimes of the Nixon administration. Sadly, that lofty status is no more for Mr. Woodward. He’s become a shill for the Bush administration. At least we still have Carl Bernstein to look up to.
I think Woodward is wrong on all counts. I wouldn’t defend his actions. The point I was trying to make above is if he did absolutely nothing with the information he received and if it was given to him as part of background for his book- not intended to be disclosed, would he still have the same moral obligation to come forward saying someone told him that? He really couldn’t before the indictment was announced because only the GJ, Fitzpatrick and team knew the earliest, or thought they did.
it’s not generally in the interest of the people for the press to hide government conspiracies against them.
That’s the standard for protecting a source, Boo. Seems like public interest should be the obvious requirement, since the exemption was created specifically for its protection, but bullshit has been trumping simple logic for a long time.
For what it’s worth, I think Woodward, Pincus, Miller and a bunch of others in the MSM are just as connected by roots as are the aspens.
For the most part it has been below the surface for the past 3 or 4 decades but it’s all coming to the surface now.
I’ve said in other posts that this seems to involve not only the two opposite extremes of the political spectrum but ideological zealots, profiteers and others who have been involved to pursue an agenda.
It’s dynamic and continually evolving so that many of the ones long involved in these groups have worn different roles and allegiances through the years.
It’s the height of irony that Woodward’s former partner Carl Bernstein exposed the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird”, (their subversion of the free press right here in the USA by using paid complicit reporters for their own propaganda purposes), in a brilliant piece back in 1977 in Rolling Stone. (It’s also incredibly ironic that WaPo was the CIA’s favorite paper for their activities, and that the paper’s publisher {Phillip Graham), was in on the whole deal right from the start, having been a military intel officer himself in WWII.)
Of course Bernstein’s journalism career got whacked pretty hard after that while DC Bob just get getting more and more notoriety.
I think that might also help illustrate why the press corps and media came to be so meek. Plenty of op-eds point out the access the journalists are afraid of losing. It’s all about control.
Here’s a paragraph from Rep. Waxman’s letter to the President, via Card, asking yet again for accountability.
Hey, if Judy Miller had a security clearance to have knowledge of classified information why wouldn’t Woodward?
Woodward obstructed justice and journalism. Shame on him. And why? Because he was doing the same thing the Bushies have done over and over again: putting his own narrow interests ahead — way ahead — of the public’s. His book. Their political survival.
Before the days of his precious “access,” Woodward had to do journalism the old fashioned way. The way it should be done: working the phones and sidewalks til your ears and feet are sore. And what do we get for all of his vaunted access? Weak, access-laden puff pieces on the absolute worst catastrophe of a presidency the nation has ever known.
Woodward is so self-absorbed, or maybe just not very smart after all, that he thinks the casual, offhand tip about Wilson’s wife is just that: casual and offhand. He thinks Fitzgerald’s investigation is ‘laughable.’ So he hides information that everyone knows is of utmost importance to a federal grand jury investigation in the United States of America. It doesn’t occur to him that this is not his call to make, that he and his book are not really that important. Or that he might not know everything about this. Or, at least, that he might know less than the prosecutor who spent two years interviewing under oath everyone involved.
I admit that I have enjoyed watching the unfolding collapse of the Bush presidency. They are so wrong about everything that matters and so deserving of the ongoing walk down the political plank that they are taking.
But I feel no joy in watching the death of journalism. I used to be reporter, and guilty of many sins — biases, the occasional trespassing, reading stuff I wasn’t supposed to read, and always lying to the producers about how long my story really was. Honestly, it was only after I left the profession that I came to fully appreciate the awesome power of the first amendment to the United States constitution. And maybe that’s why I’m so discouraged about this.
I’m not a reporter anymore because I chose to make a career change. Woodward isn’t a reporter anymore either. He just doesn’t know it.
Woodward became his own biggest fan, and that was the end of his ability to be a responsible newsman.