Despite appearances, we’re not particularly bothered about all this chatter regarding the Rove-Plame affair, partly because we’re supposed to be finishing the new issue, you know, putting all the frosting and chopped nuts and confetti on the long-johns here at the doughnut shop. But we noticed an interesting thread over at Romenesko, relative to Mike Miner’s thumb-twiddling at the Chicago Reader. Miner asks why reporters have not done the job of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald–that is, why haven’t reporters themselves discovered and publicized the name of the person who leaked Valerie Plame’s name.
The answer to that is pretty simple, aside from the obvious legal tools that Fitzgerald has to compell witnesses or, say, throw them in jail. (Summarized nicely here, by Aaron Clemens.) Considering that whoever leaked her name knew or should have known that he was committing a federal crime, not a lot of people have the spine or the stomach to go on the record (or even off the record) with such an allegation without dramatic and unimpeachable evidence. That same trepidation affects reporters, and it should. Unless you can prove that Karl Rove is the man you think he is, you run a pretty serious risk of libel. The stakes don’t get a lot higher, though blog-nation loves to play fast and loose with the facts, and frequently turns innuendo into accepted, wife-beating truism. (We’ve stopped holding our breath waiting for the first high-profile libel case to emerge from something someone wrote on a blog… Here in the U.S., it’s relatively hard to win a libel or slander case when it involves public or political figures, which is as it should be, even if it explains Rush Limbaugh’s savings account. We guess it has to do with the fact that so few blogs seem to warrant being taken seriously, present company included, naturally.)
The other element of all this that we find compelling, that no one seems to be writing about, is its meta-media quality–on some level, if you want to get your tinfoil hat out and talk about media conspiracies, it is possible to discuss it under the rubric of political bias, and it might take you in some interesting directions. Time magazine, by caving into the judicial system and Mr. Fitzgerald, might actually be playing to its liberal bias, because it has facilitated the publication of what appears to be Leaker Number One’s name–Karl Rove, who also happens to be Blue America’s Most Wanted. (We dislike him as much as anyone, probably more. But last time we checked, libel law does not stop applying when your intentions are pure and your politics are noble.) Journalists have got themselves into quite a lather over Time’s decision–are they protesting a little too loudly?
No, we think generally they are sincere, even if the New York Times appears to be working overtime (like our managerial friends over there at the Strib) to convince the world of its political neutrality by erring on the side of the right (maybe even going so far as to take pains to use Republican accounting methods in its circulation department). While we like to play both sides of the issue for our own entertainment and edification, we basically agree with our friend Chris Lehmann: No matter what you may think of Judy Miller’s work, she is chilling in the cooler for simply trying to get on with it. She can’t very well repair her tarnished reportorial credentials in an orange jumpsuit and bunny slippers, can she.
But we wonder whether this whole thing really will deflate the courage of other potential anonymous sources the way people are saying it will. Maybe so. How often are these sources breaking the law–or at least bending the rules–to speak to reporters? Probably more than you might think. Cripes, coffee-jerks at Starbucks have to sign confidentiality agreements these days, and unless you are explicitly authorized to shill for your company, there’s a pretty good chance you’re violating some contract somewhere.
Leave a Reply