You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #56: We also know most of the other journalists [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-04 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
56. We also know most of the other journalists
in addition to Novak,

Andrea Mitchell has said she was contacted, as was someone from Time magazine and two reporters for...Newsday, I think it was. I think the sixth "journalist" was Chris Matthews, right? Wasn't he the one who said that he was told that "Plame is fair game.." --by Rove? Or maybe that last one was later.

I think the suggestion of telling another reporter and having that reporter refuse to divulge sources is a great way around the issue, as far as the reporters the instance of Novak, he has become part of the story, not simply a reporter of the story, and he went on to write more articles, naming the company that Plame worked for, even.

The law that currently exists allows a journalist to be exempt from charges if he or she does not consistently name agents. What constitutes "consistently," though? And does it apply to the same agent more than once, or does a journalist have to show a pattern by naming different agents?

But I think the case could also be made that Novak targeted Plame by repeating giving information about her which damaged intelligence operations around the world in the hunt for WMD, and he could at the least be fined for this action to set an example for so-called journalists who think they can do the political bidding of any side and get away with it when it harms national security.

However, I think the solution to this issue is to have the special prosecutor get Karl Rove and Scotter Libby and George Bush to testify under oath about whether or not they know the identity of the person who outed Plame, and if they do, to ask them to name the name.

If they refuse to do this under oath, or if they say that they do not know the name, then the prosecutor can call the journalists and ask them simply if, based upon their knowledge of the source, Rove and Libby are perjuring themselves.

That way they do not have to name names if it is not Rove or Libby, and they are simply testifying as to whether or not they have knowledge of perjury on the part of a witness.

Couldn't that work?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Should journalists name Joe Wilson wife leaker? Eric J in MN  Dec-31-03 06:24 PM   #0 
  - Other  wryter2000   Dec-31-03 06:25 PM   #1 
  - Good thinking!  Democrats unite   Dec-31-03 06:26 PM   #2 
  - N.B.  wryter2000   Dec-31-03 06:27 PM   #3 
  - hahahah, you used to work for Rover right?  HereSince1628   Dec-31-03 06:29 PM   #4 
  - Very nicely done!!!!!  Jacobin   Dec-31-03 06:31 PM   #7 
  - Because it is still wrong  Muddleoftheroad   Dec-31-03 07:18 PM   #18 
     - It's obviously an open secret in Washington  Jacobin   Dec-31-03 10:26 PM   #28 
     - Five journalists is not an open secret  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 01:01 AM   #37 
     - Five journalists who were NOT working on a story  Jacobin   Jan-01-04 08:56 AM   #47 
        - It is not pablum  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 09:03 AM   #50 
           - The concept is fine and its important. In this situation it is being  Jacobin   Jan-01-04 09:11 AM   #52 
              - It is often twisted  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 09:13 AM   #54 
     - Robert Novak didn't make the phone calls to journalists.  Eric J in MN   Jan-01-04 08:57 AM   #48 
     - leaking identies of CIA operatives is TREASON!  Chutaiko   Jan-01-04 12:43 PM   #60 
        - Confidentiality  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 12:46 PM   #61 
     - NOVAK IS NOT A JOURNALIST  Skittles   Jan-01-04 05:38 PM   #68 
  - Great idea!  Q3JR4   Dec-31-03 06:39 PM   #12 
  - as a journalist  thinkingwoman   Dec-31-03 08:31 PM   #22 
  - No catch 22. Holding treasonous information to ones self. Is treason.  wildwww2   Jan-01-04 07:13 AM   #40 
  - uh huh, BUT  thinkingwoman   Jan-01-04 08:07 AM   #41 
     - As a former journalist  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 05:19 PM   #66 
  - Hi Thinkingwoman! Glad we have a media insider on the boards..  lostnfound   Jan-01-04 08:18 AM   #44 
     - how about right now?  thinkingwoman   Jan-01-04 04:30 PM   #62 
  - Great minds think alike  Virginian   Jan-02-04 02:37 AM   #79 
  - I voted no  shawn703   Dec-31-03 06:29 PM   #5 
  - Unbelievable picture.  billbuckhead   Dec-31-03 06:33 PM   #9 
  - It is a slippery slope for sure  worldgonekrazy   Dec-31-03 06:47 PM   #14 
  - Journalists shouldn't name anonymous sources ordinarily, but  Eric J in MN   Dec-31-03 06:48 PM   #15 
     - As a former journalist myself, I can't fault this logic much.  calimary   Dec-31-03 08:44 PM   #23 
  - I was thinking any of the 5 that didn't print the story  HereSince1628   Dec-31-03 06:30 PM   #6 
  - Voted yes, but say no on second thought  spindoctor   Dec-31-03 06:32 PM   #8 
  - People shouldn't be afraid to be open whistleblowers, because someone will  Eric J in MN   Dec-31-03 06:44 PM   #13 
  - I voted NO in hopes that SOMEDAY journalists will actually USE  revcarol   Dec-31-03 06:35 PM   #10 
  - I would say no but the woman's job was preventing nukes from entering  roguevalley   Dec-31-03 06:39 PM   #11 
  - Don't forget  sallyseven   Dec-31-03 06:51 PM   #16 
  - RevCarol  asjr   Dec-31-03 07:10 PM   #17 
  - Voted no as well  salin   Jan-01-04 11:06 AM   #57 
  - I cannot fathom why not one of those 6 has not named his/her source  gristy   Dec-31-03 07:26 PM   #19 
  - Because it would be unprofessional  Muddleoftheroad   Dec-31-03 07:35 PM   #20 
     - Was it a valid news story, or not? Should a journalist respect the  alfredo   Dec-31-03 10:16 PM   #27 
     - Story doesn't matter  Muddleoftheroad   Dec-31-03 11:19 PM   #34 
        - Was he/she a source in the classic sense, or something completely  alfredo   Jan-01-04 05:04 PM   #64 
           - A source  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 01:41 AM   #74 
     - I'm amused that you used the words "journalist" and "professional"  Jacobin   Dec-31-03 10:28 PM   #30 
        - The more we destroy the press  Muddleoftheroad   Dec-31-03 11:20 PM   #35 
           - There IS no press left in this country. It's Pravda. I'm surprised you  Jacobin   Jan-01-04 08:57 AM   #49 
              - Like DU?  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 09:04 AM   #51 
                 - I wasn't aware that DU was a media outlet  Jacobin   Jan-01-04 09:13 AM   #53 
                 - It runs articles  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 09:14 AM   #55 
                 - ok let's say, 'no independent press in the mainstream media'..  rman   Jan-02-04 05:58 AM   #81 
                    - Let's Not  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 06:58 AM   #83 
                       - many here don't have a totally anti-media view..  rman   Jan-02-04 07:43 AM   #85 
                          - There are thousands of such local media in the U.S.  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 07:49 AM   #87 
  - I voted NO and it was an act of treason  FreakinDJ   Dec-31-03 07:54 PM   #21 
  - Act of Treason  freepotter   Dec-31-03 09:00 PM   #24 
  - Journalists protect criminals as well  Muddleoftheroad   Dec-31-03 09:07 PM   #25 
  - the treason is the blowing of the cover of an intel agent,  rman   Jan-02-04 06:03 AM   #82 
  - Should journalists 'out' anyone?  MrPrax   Dec-31-03 09:34 PM   #26 
  - I don't think that revealing the name of a source under these  Eric J in MN   Dec-31-03 10:38 PM   #31 
     - BUT...  MrPrax   Jan-01-04 08:17 AM   #43 
        - In this case, a public whistleblower was anonymously smeared.  Eric J in MN   Jan-01-04 08:51 AM   #45 
  - They should leak the leakers  Hillsey   Dec-31-03 10:27 PM   #29 
  - not outing the source  rozf   Dec-31-03 10:39 PM   #32 
  - Under normal circumstances, I would have voted for #1...  rasputin1952   Dec-31-03 10:45 PM   #33 
  - Rasputin1952  oldtimer1942   Jan-02-04 08:27 AM   #88 
  - Especially if it leads to Rove!  dogman   Dec-31-03 11:22 PM   #36 
  - wait  grasswire   Jan-01-04 01:25 AM   #38 
  - Good point there, grasswire  Military Brat   Jan-01-04 01:58 AM   #39 
  - under ordinary circumstances, if someone calls a journalist  Eric J in MN   Jan-01-04 08:55 AM   #46 
  - Only if revealing the source gets W fired  are_we_united_yet   Jan-01-04 08:09 AM   #42 
  - We also know most of the other journalists  RainDog   Jan-01-04 09:54 AM   #56 
  - I don't want the journalists to play word-games, like  Eric J in MN   Jan-02-04 01:21 AM   #73 
  - Of course. The identity of a criminal is a story  orangepeel68   Jan-01-04 11:13 AM   #58 
  - That is incorrect  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-01-04 12:37 PM   #59 
  - The leaker was not a whistle blower  ThoughtCriminal   Jan-01-04 04:39 PM   #63 
  - It would seem to me it would be irrepsonsible to NOT report the name  Powerlock   Jan-01-04 05:13 PM   #65 
  - Maybe Novak isn't technically guilty but he is morally guilty.  Virginian   Jan-02-04 01:48 AM   #76 
  - Absolutely not  markus   Jan-01-04 05:33 PM   #67 
  - Revealing sources is serious and should rarely be done, but not a first.  Eric J in MN   Jan-02-04 01:08 AM   #71 
     - You get it.  ThoughtCriminal   Jan-02-04 02:16 AM   #78 
  - This administration puts lives on the line for political purposes  populistmom   Jan-01-04 11:30 PM   #69 
  - I can't believe this thread!! We constantly harp that the Bushies  revcarol   Jan-01-04 11:44 PM   #70 
  - I don't follow your argument. If one of the six journalists  Eric J in MN   Jan-02-04 01:13 AM   #72 
     - It is NOT an exception  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 01:42 AM   #75 
        - I don't know of any precedents of making it an exception, but  Eric J in MN   Jan-02-04 02:05 AM   #77 
           - Six journalists don't set industry policy  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 06:59 AM   #84 
  - should anyone who knows about wrongdoing, be silent?  rman   Jan-02-04 05:49 AM   #80 
  - This is a tough one  tom_paine   Jan-02-04 07:48 AM   #86 
  - This is not an issue of protection  randr   Jan-02-04 09:26 AM   #89 
  - As I reread this thread...  rasputin1952   Jan-02-04 11:10 AM   #90 
  - Since when do they work for *?  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 12:02 PM   #92 
     - While I agree they don't work for bush...  rasputin1952   Jan-02-04 12:43 PM   #93 
        - Actually, if there is no impending threat  Muddleoftheroad   Jan-02-04 02:01 PM   #95 
  - We need to watch...  WherestheOutrage   Jan-02-04 11:28 AM   #91 
  - Welcome to DU WherestheOutrage....  rasputin1952   Jan-02-04 12:48 PM   #94 
  - Hi WheresTheOutrage!!  newyawker99   Jan-02-04 06:06 PM   #98 
  - Welcome aboard Outrage!  Timefortruth   Jan-02-04 06:24 PM   #101 
  - Lets just all call up our local and not-so-local news  drdigi420   Jan-02-04 02:13 PM   #96 
  - They should, but I guarantee you they'll die for it  GreenPartyVoter   Jan-02-04 02:15 PM   #97 
  - Guarantee You  YNGW   Jan-02-04 06:18 PM   #99 
  - they'll be out of the biz if they do  arewethereyet   Jan-02-04 06:21 PM   #100 
  - It does not matter whether they do or not  Marianne   Jan-02-04 06:26 PM   #102 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC