Yo!! Write CNN and tell them to fire Novakula. Here's the link.

[Robin Hood]

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnnpopups/crossfire/center.html

Select the anchor to Bob Novak.

Keep it kicked for the morning crew.

[Dookus]

1. Why should he be fired?

he may have single-handedly helped to bring down W.

[Robin Hood]

2. Well, that's true.

But i don't think that his name will be going away even if he loses his job at CNN.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I asked him

whether he lied on July 14 or today, after all she either
was an Operative or an analyst... he can't have it both ways.

[Robin Hood]

7. The fact that she is an operative.

It appears that he lied yesterday/today on cross fire.

[Dookus]

5. true...

but here's my take:

Novak broke no law whatsoever.

It is NOT the job of the press to protect the government's secrets. Some dipwad in the WH decided to break the law. THAT'S who should be punished.

Novak did his job. We can argue about the ethics of it, but in the end, everything he did was perfectly legal, and ultimately, will have caused great damage to the Bush administration.

[Robin Hood]

6. I'm not sure that's right.

I don't think that the press has the right to out CIA operatives. And the CIA asked him not to name her.

[Dookus]

12. Then the CIA

should never have confirmed Novak's inquiry.

I just really hate the idea that journalists should be punished for telling the truth. Because you KNOW if that became the norm, it would be the rare right-wing journalist who was punished. It would be used almost exclusively against the real truth-telling whistle-blowers.

[Robin Hood]

14. That is a good point.

But is it journalism when a "journalist" willingly becomes a tool for a corrupt government. After all, Novak and Rove have done this before.


I do understand your hesitation, and I am the first to stand up for free speech. But, i'm not sure if this falls under that roof.

[Dookus]

17. I understand...

i'm personally uncomfortable with what Novak did.

But I think the bigger principle is that the press is NOT responsible for protecting the government's secrets. In this particular case, we can be offended by Novak's actions, because it was what we consider the "good guys" being gored.

But imagine the same rules applied to Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate. Or imagine a reporter getting access to the 9/11 report, or Cheney's energy papers, and publishing them. Should THEY be punished for it?

I try to separate the principles from the parties involved. The principle of a free press is more important to me than punishing an individual right-wing pundit.

[spooky3]

24. W&B's Watergate work was not parallel to Novak's actions

Novak did not delve into the story of why the govt. was engaging in wrongdoing, which was the whole focus of W&B's investigation, in order to alert the public to it and get it stopped. Instead, he aided and abetted the wrongdoing by publicizing her name when it was clear that retaliation against her husband was the motive, and he put her in jeopardy. There were other steps he could have taken had he had W&B's motivation. A closer (but imperfect) parallel would have been if someone told W&B to reveal who Deep Throat was, so that a hit squad could go after him/her, and they complied and stopped their investigation.

[juajen]

10. It was my understanding

that there was or is a CIA agent present at all the news outlets to make sure that nothing untoward is leaked. Where were they, or was it a SS agent?

[Robin Hood]

11. Really? Is that true?

i did not know that.

[evilgrin]

13. Legal, yes - ethical? No

But then, when did conservative pundits fret over ethics?

[newyawker99]

23. Hi evilgrin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[L4d]

22. Sorry, but this isn't true

Journalists can be required to reveal their sources over very serious issues like this. It happens all the time. Journalists cannot, in the course of their work, print something that is outright treasonous, as this is. Just imagine a journalist revealing nuclear launch codes acquired from a source (if any editor would be stupid enough to let it go to print). Sorry, but that journalist WILL be required to reveal his source. It's a national security issue that trumps the First Amendment, and the Constitution DOES allow for such circumstances.

Both Novak and the persons who outted Plame need to face charges.

[lanlady]

28. that's right--Novak is not an attorney or a priest confessor

All your points are valid, L4d. Journalists can be compelled to reveal their sources. There's no equivalent to attorney/client privilege when it comes to reporters and they people they talk to.

[Terwilliger]

9. this action is not worth the sacrifice of the Wilsons, or the assets

Novak is now confirmed as a tool of ideologies. How is he a journalist anymore? He tried to take out an ambassador by dragging his family into the petty revenge on the part of the Bush administration. This is not something that Novak should have allowed himself to do.

[dkf]

15. Yup. I wonder if he knew what he was doing.

Keep em.

[Robin Hood]

16. Since Rove and Novak pulled a similar stunt in 92'

I have no belief in Novak being a victim in this case.

[Must_B_Free]

3. don'e

kicik

[juajen]

8. I did it!

I really think they should fire him and told them so.

:kick:

[chascarrillo]

18. Fired from Sun Times, not CNN

I think that it's abundantly clear (at least to left partisans and non-partisans - from looking at righty blogs it's readily apparent that they still have their heads in the sand) that Novak lied in his editorial written earlier this year. This calls into question his credibility with regards to the paper that employs him. While he is a columnist and writes opinion, there's still a modicum of quality that he has to meet. Lying in an editorial would seem to fall short of standards that a newspaper wishes to keep.

However, I don't think that his CNN gig should be held in the same light. Yes, he waffles and is completely partisan there too - but the show is a completely different format. I dunno - I just find it hard to hold his feet under the fire there (at least for Crossfire - Capital Gang might be a different question) when the two lefty hosts are also completely partisan. They both have infinitely more integrity, sure. However, the format of the show call for less strict standards.

But I dunno... I could be wrong!

[JackSwift]

20. Reporting is different from Commentating

and has different standards. Commentators rely on others to do almost all the leg work, and then analyze what the facts mean from a particular perspective. Reporters should consciously avoid perspective. Instead, they have "angles": for example, if a reporter is reporting on the developments of the Wilson spouse investigation story, the reporter may gather a lot of information on the yellowcake sentence in the state of the union speech. That information may never be used (or only used at a later date), much to the annoyance of those providing the information who may want it out immediately. The reporter focuses on the angle assigned by the editor: will there or won't there be an investigation, scope, etc. Commentators have a lot more freedom to choose their own "angle" and run with it. That's why so many commentators are former editors, they know that Yellowcake is Still a Lie is a lousy story, but that AG appoints prosecutor to investigate WH is damn hot!

I would like to see Novak get some kind of punishment short of firing. I think it was a stupid mistake on his part. I'm of the opinion that he comes by his fascist beliefs somewhat honestly and lost his whore status 35 years ago shortly after he first switched parties.

[spooky3]

26. I'd like to see CNN specify what its employees are supposed to do

and what support they can expect from CNN if they are given info by the govt that should not be revealed.

[JackSwift]

19. Novak commited no crime

but in my opinion it was highly unethical of him to identify someone who worked confidentially in any capacity at the CIA. If he had been one of my columnists (I used to be an opinion editor) I would like to think I would have caught it and not run it. I would apologize to my readers if it ran, and if someone got killed because of it, I have no idea how I would live with myself. I'd feel pretty bad about the woman having to change jobs because of such recklessness.

As I understand it, "senior WH aide" is beltway code for one of about seven positions within the WH. If Bush really were trying to protect this country and its military and intelligence services, rather than his own crass political agenda of kleptocracy, he would demand that all his top aides sign a waiver and publish them, so each of the half dozen reporters who were fed this story could out the two culprits. If that didn't work, he could fire everyone in the categories covered.

[roguevalley]

21. You do know that this woman ran agents and that there will probably

be people killed over Novak's stupid assed behavior.
I think that rates a you're fired! in and of itself.
As for 'he didn't do anything'... he broke federal
law by outing an agent. The other six didn't. He
printed it. He's a grown up or so he's so fond of
telling you. Don't forget that people are dead because
of him, the bastard. He knew better. He has to go.

[spooky3]

25. Failure to be ethical is a very good reason to be fired, and

a good basis for our indignation. Legality does not equate to ethics.

[Terwilliger]

27. kick

[Robin Hood]

29. Kick.