"A leak is when you ask a reporter to write a story"

by emptywheel

Actually, the quote in the title is not by emptywheel. It's a Ken Mehlman quote.

We wake up today with presumably identically--and single--sourced stories, appearing in the the three major "serious" media outlets in this country (the LA Times and WSJ must feel slighted). Here are the descriptions of the reliable source pitching this story:

(NYT)

someone who has been officially briefed on the matter

The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity. 

[the article later includes this phrase: "Mr. Rove's allies have said" with no indication whether those allies provided new information for this story...hmmm]

(WaPo)

a lawyer involved in the case

The lawyer, who has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors,

Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury

according to a source familiar with his account. [this in connection to Libby learning of Plame's identity from a journalist]

(AP)

according to a person briefed on the testimony. The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy,

Now, with the exception of the WaPo, which did some reporting using an anonymous source attached to Libby and an anonymous source attached to Cooper (kudos Mike Allen!), these stories all rely on one source--presumably the same "person in the legal profession" who happens to be a "lawyer" that "has been briefed in the matter" and therefore "has knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors" (for the sake of simplicity, perhaps we should call this anonymous person "Loquacious Luskin"). These stories--coupled with Mehlman's revealing statement--typify White House behavior in this Plame Affair...and more generally. 

Obviously, these stories are the product of a deliberate effort to push back against the heat on Karl Rove, to buy some time, at least until Fitzgerald makes indictments, and perhaps to throw suspicion elsewhere (Libby and Judy sitting in a tree, L-E-A-K-I-NG). As with the original Plame leak, the White House has managed to get its spin--virtually unchallenged--into the papers of record and the main newswire. Even with the issue of sourcing and spin occupying such a central role in the Plame case, these journalists couldn't resist the bait. And so I think Margaret Carlson was naive or premature when she declared in an LAT editorial yesteday,

The one good thing to come out of all this is that journalists have been reminded to say "no" to those cowards trying to get revenge or dish dirt without putting their names on it. Our promise of confidentiality should be given for information that corrects an injustice, not perpetrates one.

No one is saying no, Margaret, at least not yet.

It's not just Judy Miller who loses credibility when she relies exclusively on anonymous sources with a clear agenda. It's the whole profession. And it's a habit the press, like anonymous source junkies on a long waiting list to get into a methodone clinic, are desperate to break. Back in May, the Washington bureau chiefs proposed boycotting The White House's background-only briefings until they were allowed to go on record (The idea actually came up at a blogger press ethics panel earlier in the year, but the final straw was a background briefing in which three administration officials gave a briefing on the President's energy policy where reporters were not only told to report on background--but they weren't even told the identity of the officials in question). Scottie, like a heroin dealer taunting his customers, said he'd do so as soon as they gave up their anonymous sources.

I told them upfront that I would be the first to sign on if we could get an end to the use of anonymous sources in the media,

And in a clarifying follow-up.

My comment to you was reflecting that I would welcome the media getting rid of anonymous sourcing -- with some rare exceptions that are more than justifiable.

Perhaps revealing trade secrets, Scottie also disparaged anonymous sources in general.

As I said, I think one of the concerns the American people have is that sources hide behind their anonymity to provide selective information to reporters in order to generate negative attacks. I think Americans naturally view such reports with great suspicion. We all have an obligation to work together to address these issues. [emphasis mine]

Scottie, I'm sure, didn't mean this sincerely. What would the White House do if they couldn't leak information on their enemies? They'd be sunk without one of their most valuable weapons. How would Karl Rove be able to build a case for his innocence in the court of public opinion if he (or his lawyer) had to go on the record to make such claims. But perhaps this was one of the rare exceptions Scottie was talking about.

The background briefing boycott didn't work. First, Robert Downie of the WaPo refused to play along (the effort was launched by the bureau chiefs of the USA Today, Knight Ridder, Cox Newspapers, ABC News, LAT, NYT and AP).Then one after another bureau chief crawled back into the backgrounder fold.

More recently, the Press did some collective soul-searching in response to the claims surrounding a single-sourced Michael Isikoff article reporting allegations that Gitmo guards flushed the Koran. That certainly hasn't stopped Isikoff from using anonymous sources. And contrary to what the Plain Dealer may say, few journalists are holding back from anonymous sources because Judy Miller is sitting in jail. While it's early yet, but I haven't seen journalists wringing any hands this morning about the NYT and AP using a single anonymous source on a story.

In response to the attempt to boycott background briefings, Jay Rosen suggested that--rather than boycott as a group--newspapers could simply stop. Stop on their own. Explain to readers they'd get fewer anonymous sources in their stories but also more credibility.

Obviously, there's reason not to totally boycott anonymous sources. Much of what we know about the lies leading up to the Iraq, for example, we owe to people leaking anonymously. Sy Hersh--many people like to point out--makes ample use anonymous sources. But then, Sy Hersh is a tough guy to spin.

Which would be a good response--to defy the spin. Matt Cooper seems to have done this when he reported that BushCo was trying to smear Plame. After all, one of the things Luskin has been willing to say on the record this week is that Cooper burned Rove by not accepting his spin as delivered. And to be fair, it seems like Mike Allen may have done a bit of this by referring to the source in this story as a lawyer when the other two stories label the source much more ambiguously (I'm not sure I heard you right, Mike, did you say Luskin?). But imagine how the story would play if Matt Cooper wrote it: Rove lawyer tries to argue his client isn't guilty.

The press has gotten rather spunky with Scottie of late, refusing to drop questions about Rove's guilt. But it's not enough to ask "hard kweschins." Nor is enough to--as Margaret Carlson suggests--just say no. With or without Karl Rove at its helm, this Administration will continue to abuse anonymous sources so long as journalists refuse to call out the spin they're getting hand-fed.

Comments

[Kagro X]

Once again, you gotta love the people who think they're honoring grand jury secrecy because they leak their information anonymously.

I mean, that pretty much gets to the heart of the problem, doesn't it? That as long as you don't get caught, you're blameless? That, and the rather narcissistic notion that somehow it's not the information they're protecting with those laws -- no, they're just jealous that the leaker might get credit for the info.

What a cesspool.

[DHinMI]

I've long contended that Miller isn't the most frequent tool of the GOP at the Times, that instead it's the co-author of today's piece, Richard Stevenson. Almost every single thing he writes is an anoymously sourced piece about what the WH, the Bush campaign or the RNC is doing. He's the worst damn tool in the entire DC press corps. I'm not surprised he was Rove's tool with this story; I would have been shocked if he wasn't.

[Meteor Blades]

This is one of those instances when, as an ex-journalist, I'd like to believe that a diligent reporter went looking for a source in the Administration, found one, tied what the source said to previously known material, then reported it in a nuanced way.

But it's obvious that it wasn't a reporter who ferreted out the source but rather the source who approached the reporters.

Now that's not always a bad thing. It's what whistleblowers do - Daniel Ellsberg still being a prime example. No reporter was looking for him; it was the other way around. However, when the anonymous source is someone who works for an organization - corporate or governmental - and provides information that supports the contentions of someone else who works for that organization who is under fire, well, how many synapses does it take for a reporter's bullshit antennae to go on full alert?

Given what's happened repeatedly during the Bush Administration, a good reporter ought to add a disclaimer in any story that relies exclusively on a single anonymous source; to wit: "Readers should buy into the "revelations" of an anonymous source with extreme caution as the source's agenda is unknown and may be disinformational in nature." Readers should, of course, ALWAYS do that, whether or not the source is anonymous.

Right now, with the feeding frenzy on, reporters are going to feel incredible pressure to find any little tidbit in order to be first to report something "new" in the Rove/Plame case. So we can probably expect to see more of this. One wonders if Mr. Fitzgerald will be subpoenaing reporters from the WaPo, NYT and AP to find out who leaked this information in contravention of his command that they keep their traps shut.

Many - though not enough - media outlets already have ethics guidelines governing, among other things, use of anonymous sources. My old stomping grounds, The Los Angeles Times, just got around to issuing its guidelines after a year's worth of internal wrangling.

For many of us who have worked as investigative reporters, the guidelines' take on anonymous sources seems mostly like commonsense. That a newspaper of such high visibility and reputation must actually explain to its reporters how they should handle sources (and deal with other ethical situations) speaks volumes about the state of the journalistic profession.

Of anonymous sources, the guidelines say:

Sources

We report in environments – Hollywood and Washington, to name two – where
anonymity is routinely sought and casually granted. We stand against that practice and
seek to minimize it. We are committed to informing readers as completely as possible;
the use of anonymous sources compromises this important value.

These standards are not intended to discourage reporters from cultivating sources who are wary of publicity. Such informants can be invaluable. But the information they
provide can often be verified with sources willing to be named, from documents, or both.
We should make every effort to obtain such verification. Relying in print on unnamed
sources should be a last resort, subject to the following guidelines:

When we use anonymous sources, it should be to convey important information to
our readers. We should not use such sources to publish material that is trivial, obvious or
self-serving.

Sources should never be permitted to use the shield of anonymity to voice
speculation or to make ad hominem attacks.

An unnamed source should have a compelling reason for insisting on anonymity,
such as fear of retaliation, and stories should state those reasons when they are relevant.

The reporter and editor must be satisfied that the source has a sound factual basis for
his or her assertions. Some sources quoted anonymously might tend to exaggerate or
overreach precisely because they will not be named.

Stories should identify sources as completely as possible consistent with the promise
of anonymity. In particular, a source’s point of view and potential biases should be
disclosed as fully as possible. For instance, “an advisor to Democratic members of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee” is preferable to “a Congressional source.”

When practical, a reporter should consult an editor before entering into an agreement to protect a source’s anonymity. In some cases, an editor may insist on knowing the
source’s identity in order to evaluate the reliability of the information provided.
In rare instances, sources may insist that the paper and the reporter resist subpoenas
and judicial orders, if necessary, to protect their anonymity. Reporters should consult a
masthead editor before entering into any such agreement.

Even in the absence of such an agreement, the possibility exists that a prosecutor,
grand jury or judge will demand to know a source’s identity, forcing the reporter to
choose between unmasking the source and going to jail for contempt of court. Such
situations are rare, and they should not deter us from investigating sensitive or
contentious matters.

Reporters should be extremely circumspect about how and where they store
information that might identify an anonymous source. Many electronic records, including
e-mail, can be subpoenaed from and retrieved by non-newsroom employees.
Promises to a source must be kept except under the most extraordinary
circumstances. If a source, acting in bad faith, were to succeed in using the newspaper to
spread misinformation, we would consider our promise of anonymity no longer binding.
That said, we do not “burn” sources.

[emptywheel]

I've been trying to find the Times' guidelines, also issued this year (or renewed, when they switched public editors). IIRC they emphasize the writer should indicate why the source needed to be anonymous. Now, if my fairly elementary speculation is right and this is Luskin, I think an appropriate explanation for the anonymity would be, "the source doesn't want to be identified because he wants to hide the fact that he is preparing his clients' defense." Perhaps I'm too harsh. Maybe they could have just said, "the source, who has a personal interest in the story." Instead, they went back to the old "Fitzgerald told me not to talk." Furthermore, if it IS Luskin, it's really pathetic that these guys accepted it, seeing as how they refer to Luskin by name elsewhere in the article.

[TenThousandThings]

[This post is a bit of a test. If your computer's operating system can't read Chinese, you won't see the Chinese portion correctly.]

子貢問曰:「有一言而可以終身行之者乎?」
子曰:「其恕乎?己所不欲,勿施於人.」

Zigong asked, "Is there a single word which one could act on all one's life?"
The Master said, "Wouldn't it be shù [恕] (likening-to-oneself)? What you do not yourself desire do not do to others."

From the Confucian Analects, 15.24 (A.C. Graham, transl. in Disputers of the Tao, p. 20.)

It strikes me that Rove is paying the price for not adhering to this maxim (the Chinese version of the Golden Rule, which is slightly different and more astute politically than the Western version, if you ask me). After all, Confucius was a political advisor/consultant.

So I would dispute the idea that what is happening here is that Democrats are learning to play Rove's amoral game. It's more that the house rules are beginning to be enforced.

[Mimikatz]

If you read the NYT and the WaPo story carefully, I think it supports your theory, 'wheel, that there is an effort to shift blame onto Cheney's shop here. I eagerly await the Cheney camp's response.

What seems to have happened is not just that they were worried about Wilson revealing what he found out, but that Cheney became incensed that he was being linked to Wilson's trip. So his minions pushed back, starting the "workup" on Wilson etc. (This suggests timing for the preparation of the INR Report, btw).

Someone from the Cheney gang was presumably the one who knew or figured out the connection of Valerie to Joe. Then it went to Novak and a few others. But Rove knew about the connection, if not all the details, when Novak called.

There is a not-so-subtle attempt here by Luskin to try to turn attention back to the original leaker, or "connector," if you will. Not so good for Cheney & Co, maybe not even for Rove. But if this pack of theives is turning on each other, better for us trying to find out what happened.

[teacherken]

This is tangentially related, so bear with me.

Why can't Novak have two completely different sources, say Hannah or Libby as the political person, and Rice or Powell as the non-partisan official?  In other words, is Rove directly involved in the production of Novak's story as one of the two sources?

One would think that anyone in the Iraq Working Group might well have known Plame's identity.  Especially if Wilson is write that they had a meeting and decided to do a workup on him -- that workup in istelf would not necessarily be against the law.

Rove in saying "I've heard that too" if those were his exact words did not say HOW he had heard that, and thus it is not per se a denial of KNOWING  ..  it does not even address the question of if he KNEW, and gives him deniability to the charge that he told --  the statement is so vague that IF you believe it, by itself there is probably no criminal liability.

The followup phone calls once Novak's article had been published, however, are a clear violation of the law.  Rove may not have realized that.  If in fact he did call Matthews and Mtichell and tell the former that Plame was now fair game, then he would seem to believe that since her name was published no secrecy needed to be continued.  But that is NOT how the law reads, and that act by itself is a clear violation of the espionage act, serves as a confirmation of Plame's identity, and may well violate the IIPA, particularly subsection (b).  

I think our focus may be wrong.  I think Fitzgerald can legally nail Rove for the phone calls AFTER Novak's column appeared.

[Mimikatz]

Maybe, but it appears the FBI has been looking into the months before the leak and looking for the original leak since the investigation started. if they are loking at a substantial crime, as the judges' opinions would suggest, conspiracy comes to mind, and it might have been a fairly large one.

[Mimikatz]

My last comment refers to the Pincus-Allen article. The link is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13696-2003Oct11?language=printer.

[Mimikatz]

In fact, the Pincus-Allen story says pretty clearly,

"One reason investigators are looking back is that even before Novak's column appeared, government officials had been trying for more than a month to convince journalists that Wilson's mission was not as important as it was being portrayed.
. . . The FBI is trying to determine when White House officials and members of the Vice President's staff first focused on Wilson and learned about his wife's employment at the agency. One group that may have known of the connection at the time is the handful of CIA officers detailed to the White House, where they work primarily on the National Security Council staff. . . .
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said in responmse to a query for this article: 'I think it would be counterproductive during an ongoing investigation for me to chase rumors and speculation. . . .'"

Not too much has changed since then.

[Steve]

When I first heard about this story, my first reaction was, it's utter bullshit if it's Luskin and they gave him anonymity. My second reaction was, I wonder what MB will have to say?

What most people don't grasp is that Luskin is an ADMINISTRATION SOURCE - he is the lawyer for a top Administration official, he's not some pundit randomly spouting off. I don't see how the media can let the WH get away with saying their official policy is not to comment, but then they grant WH officials anonymity so they can comment without appearing to break their own rule. It's totally ridiculous.

[emptywheel]

Ah, but the difference, Steve, is that Luskin is NOT under any suspicion of participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, as Scottie likely is.

Further, you have to feel for the guy. He and Rove are the only two people who can legally talk about Rove's testimony. So he pretty much has to leak now, doesn't he.

[Steve]

I feel for the guy, but I sure don't feel for the media that insists on giving the public a completely false impression that the Administration is hiding behind a principled refusal to comment.

If someone tells the world that they're not going to comment, but then they tell the media that they'll give them a story as long as they're sourced anonymously, the response should be a big "fuck you." Letting anonymous source protection serve as a license to commit partisan smears is how we got in this whole mess in the first place.

[RonK, Seattle]

Pretty slick triangulation, emptywheel.

[emptywheel]

Here are the recommendations recently made to the NYT on the use of anonymous sources:

• Reporters must be more aggressive in pressing sources to put information and quotations on the record, especially sources who strongly desire to get their viewpoint into the paper.

• Editors must be more energetic in pressing reporters to get that information on the record. They must also recognize that persuading reticent sources to put their names behind sensitive disclosures is not easy; it may slow the reporting.

• When anonymity is unavoidable, reporters and editors must be more diligent in describing sources more fully. The basics include how the anonymous sources know what they know, why they are willing to provide the information and why they are entitled to anonymity.

And in Keller's response to the report.

We resist granting anonymity for opinion, speculation or personal attacks.

[snip]

when anonymity is unavoidable editors must press for adequate disclosure — how the sources know what they know, what motivated them to share the information, and why they are entitled to anonymity. (Note: Not why they ASK for anonymity, but why we feel they are entitled to it.)

I wonder how deeply Mr. Johnston and Mr. Stevenson considered the motive of the person who leaked this information on Rove. And I wonder why it wasn't included in this story.

[emptywheel]

My bad. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Stevenson did tell us their source's motivation:

The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity.

I'm not sure whether they need to read more novels (better understanding of the word "motivation") or just need to fine tune their language. If this is motivation, it seems, the proper sentence should be, The person discussed the matter because he wanted to explain to the public how--in spite of Rove's admitted involvement in the Plame affair--he is not guilty of a crime.

[DemFromCT]

here's another story I missed from Froomkin:

And there's another possible blockbuster story this morning from Thomas M. DeFrank and Kenneth R. Bazinet , who write in the New York Daily News: "The special prosecutor probing the outing of a CIA spy is looking beyond who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, seeking whether White House aides tried to cover their tracks after her name went public, sources told the Daily News.

"Along with Bush political guru Karl Rove, the grand jury is investigating what role, if any, ex-White House mouthpiece Ari Fleischer may have played in the revelation that the former covert operative Plame was married to former Ambassador Joe Wilson. . . .

"A State Department memo that included background on Wilson -- and who in the White House had access to it -- appears to be a key to revealing who gave conservative columnist Robert Novak Plame's name, [two] sources said."

[Steve]

The press operates in the public interest. When dealing with a whistleblower or anonymous source, isn't the basic question the reporter should ask himself is whether publishing this information will serve the public interest?

In general, the societal presumption is that more information is in the public interest; get all the facts and arguments out there and let people make up their own mind. But when you're talking about grand jury proceedings, there is a VERY GOOD REASON those are among the most confidential proceedings that take place in our country. So again, the reporter needs to ask - am I really serving the public interest by repeating these allegations about what was said before the grand jury?

Consider this thought experiment. Let's say a journalist gets his hands on Harry Potter's invisibility cloak and now has the power to watch grand jury proceedings, from start to finish, without anyone realizing. Would it be in the public interest for him to report on what he saw in those proceedings? Would it be in the public interest for him to publish a transcript?

If so, then maybe we need to reconsider the laws that grant such strict secrecy to grand jury proceedings. And if not, I think reporters need to get a lot more serious regarding whether they want to republish partisan leaks about what goes on before the grand jury.

[emptywheel]

Here's an observation about the Karl Rove leaks this morning. The AP definitely got one of the leaks. But the only articles integrating that information are a Newsday article (bylining the AP writer) and an MSNBC article citing the AP source but with an MSNBC byline. Is it that everyone else decided not to run a story based on the AP source? Or did AP back off of the story themselves?

[Steve]

Murray Waas seems to be thinking along the same lines as me:

The coverage underscores the secrecy surrounding Fitzgerald's grand-jury investigation. The few leaks that constitute public knowledge of the investigation's progress have largely come from one side: the defense attorneys'. And what they have to say is oftentimes self-serving, misleading, and in some cases untrue. Their all-too-willing collaborators have been the nation's leading newspapers.

[emptywheel]

From Waas:

Luskin asked me to delay publication for a day or two, before deciding on what he wanted to say for the article.

What an idiot. They're perjuring themselves--but they don't even have their stories worked out yet!! Karl Rove may or may not be a genius ... but his lawyer is a hack.

[Meteor Blades]

Thanks for the Waas link, emptywheel - interesting stuff.

[yuntrip]

云南旅游
云南旅游
丽江旅游
昆明旅游
香格里拉旅游
西双版纳旅游
大理旅游
丽江
香格里拉
大理
西双版纳
云南旅行社
昆明旅行社

云南旅游网
云南旅游
云南旅游线路
云南旅游景点
云南旅游地图
云南旅行社
昆明旅行社
云南旅游信息
大理旅游
丽江旅游
香格里拉旅游
西双版纳旅游
昆明旅游
云南旅游注意事项
云南丽江旅游
云南自助旅游
日志