Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Penske has a hoo-ha?

If he did, it damn sure wouldn't take 3 months to work your way into it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Penske has a hoo-ha?

Ask him on tomorrow's conference.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there had been any doubt that Robert Novak deserves his own circle of Hell, this confirms it. Novak outed a CIA officer as the probably leaker of the National Intelligence Estimate. Burning sources is apparently OK if you're doing a Republican administration's dirty work, but not otherwise.

I don't get it. He didn't burn his own source, right? So what's the problem?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get it. He didn't burn his own source, right? So what's the problem?

If you think there's no greater principle involved than keeping your own word to a particular person, there's no problem. If, on the other hand, you have some notion that journalism is a profession serving the public interest, then there's a problem.*

* The view is that "[t]he purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and the fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest." Michael Kinsley in Slate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

* The view is that "[t]he purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and the fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest." Michael Kinsley in Slate.

\

This sounds awfully close to what Safire was saying in yesterday's op/ed. They are both wrong, no contractual obligation between a reporter and a source can trump an illegal act that harms national security. If someone interprets their argument as agreeing and yet saying something different, I'm all ears. Til then, just reading the words from the 4th estate leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello

[Gattigap]

Trying again:

AP shows us the template article that will be used in a few hours.

Damn. I thought TDS last night was just making a joke.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think there's no greater principle involved than keeping your own word to a particular person, there's no problem. If, on the other hand, you have some notion that journalism is a profession serving the public interest, then there's a problem.*

* The view is that "[t]he purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and the fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest." Michael Kinsley in Slate.

That is ridiculous. If Novak leaked his own source that's one thing. But he leaked someone else's source, with whom I'm sure Novak had no relationship. That is called reporting and it is in the pubic interest.

eta: The market check here is that no one should speak to Novak in the future.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is ridiculous. If Novak leaked his own source that's one thing. But he leaked someone else's source, with whom I'm sure Novak had no relationship. That is called reporting and it is in the pubic interest.

eta: The market check here is that no one should speak to Novak in the future.

Puhleeze.

If that's true, then I guess you're of the opinion that any of the other reporters to whom Novak's source shopped the Plame story should've revealed the government source.

After all, the source tried several times, with different reporters, to sell the story before h/she reached Novak at the bottom of the barrel. According to you, not only is it permissible, it's in the public interest for any of those other reporters to come forward, do some "reporting" and burn Novak's source.

Right?

Novak's pissing on the umbrella that otherwise protects him. That's what the problem is.

Your "market check" seems to suggest that you agree that it's a stupid fucking thing for Novak to do. It's corrosive to him, but in an immediate sense it's corrosive to the rest of the community, and that's what's unacceptable.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Puhleeze.

If that's true, then I guess you're of the opinion that any of the other reporters to whom Novak's source shopped the Plame story should've revealed the government source.

After all, the source tried several times, with different reporters, to sell the story before h/she reached Novak at the bottom of the barrel. According to you, not only is it permissible, it's in the public interest for any of those other reporters to come forward, do some "reporting" and burn Novak's source.

Right?

Novak's pissing on the umbrella that otherwise protects him. That's what the problem is.

Your "market check" seems to suggest that you agree that it's a stupid fucking thing for Novak to do. It's corrosive to him, but in an immediate sense it's corrosive to the rest of the community, and that's what's unacceptable.

Look, I don't have a particular liking for Novak. But if he wants to report something that 's up to him and he'll have to deal with the consequences of it. I think it was stupid of him, but he's probably retiring soon or something and doesn't give a rats ass.

What damage do you think has been done? Do you really think people are going to stop leaking or speaking to the press over this? Of course not. This is not a one way street. People get something out of speaking to the press, and the press gets something out of it by reporting it. They need each other. Now it may make people more discriminating as to who they speak with, but that is a good thing in my mind.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
eta: The market check here is that no one should speak to Novak in the future.

Dissent. No one should read Novak in the future.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Look, I don't have a particular liking for ______. But if he wants to report something that 's up to him and he'll have to deal with the consequences of it. I think it was stupid of him, but he's probably retiring soon or something and doesn't give a rats ass.

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Dan Rather.

[SlaveNoMore]

From Amazon

Americans were shocked when French president Jacques Chirac played a leading role in opposing America’s position during the Iraq crisis. In OUR OLDEST ENEMY, the authors demonstrate that France has never been our friend, has always been our rival, and has often been our enemy.

Miller and Molesky return to America’s earliest history, relating the little-known story of the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of French and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts. They show that the French came to America’s aid only at the end of the Revolution and then with the interest of harming the British; during the Civil War, they supported the Confederacy. In the twentieth century, French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions on the part of the French, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and his obstruction of American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion. French imperialism left troubling legacies as well: America’s involvement in Vietnam followed decades of conflict between the French and the Vietnamese; the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot was a product of French higher education; even the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq can be traced to French influences.

Candid and absorbing, OUR OLDEST ENEMY provides an authoritative explanation for the explosive anger toward France that has swept across America and continues to shape debates about our foreign policy and role in the world

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Now it may make people more discriminating as to who they speak with, but that is a good thing in my mind.

There are a number of responses to this, but quickly:


1. In the instant case, how do you think that he would do that and still say anything? Seems that Novak wasn't in the room. How would the source know who to trust? Seems to me like he'd just clam up.

2. Why do you think that less leaking to the press is a good thing?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Miller and Molesky return to America’s earliest history, relating the little-known story of the Deerfield Massacre of 1704, when a group of French and Indians massacred settlers in northern Massachusetts. They show that the French came to America’s aid only at the end of the Revolution and then with the interest of harming the British; during the Civil War, they supported the Confederacy. In the twentieth century, French demands at the Versailles Peace Conference paved the way for the rise of fascism in Germany and eventually required America to rescue France during World War II. The postwar period was also rife with disastrous actions on the part of the French, including Charles de Gaulle’s decision to pull out of NATO and his obstruction of American efforts to turn back Soviet expansion. French imperialism left troubling legacies as well: America’s involvement in Vietnam followed decades of conflict between the French and the Vietnamese; the genocidal Cambodian dictator Pol Pot was a product of French higher education; even the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq can be traced to French influences.

Candid and absorbing, OUR OLDEST ENEMY provides an authoritative explanation for the explosive anger toward France that has swept across America and continues to shape debates about our foreign policy and role in the world

Oh my God, they're right! Sure, average Americans remembered well the gall of deGaulle's withdrawal of NATO, but Pol Pot went to lycee??

Now we're really pissed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
\

This sounds awfully close to what Safire was saying in yesterday's op/ed. They are both wrong, no contractual obligation between a reporter and a source can trump an illegal act that harms national security. If someone interprets their argument as agreeing and yet saying something different, I'm all ears. Til then, just reading the words from the 4th estate leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Hello

The stuff I quoted from Kinsley wasn't his argument -- it was his caricature or summary of one side of the debate. In the piece I quoted -- which I would link to if I still had it up on my screen -- he was discussing exactly the problem you describe.

My point is that Novak is posing as principled, but isn't. I take it you agree. eta: Club seems to feel that Novak isn't principled. NTTAWWT.