Posted on 10/20/2005 3:53:52 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Last time I checked, discrediting an individual is not a crime. Joe Wilson claimed it was Vice President Cheney's office that sent him on the mission to Niger. That turns out not to be true. It was Valerie Plame, his wife, who nominated him for the mission which was apparently a mission of the CIA, not the Vice President's office.
Question: Doesn't the Government Ethics Act prohibit a government employee (with certain exceptions) from nominating a relative as a contractor with any agency of the U.S. government? If that's the case, isn't Valerie Plame the one who might be in trouble of (a) being indicted and (b) being fired with prejudice?
If they prayed, I'm sure they're on bended knee these days hoping that THIS is what they can use to bring down President Bush.
How about a passive agressive dung beetle?
This is the first time I recall reading the issue so starkly portrayed, albeit not in the headline. Will Fitzgerald indict one (or both) of them ? That should be answered by next week.
Okay, that works for me. :-)
Maybe I am mistaken, but if you click on the link provided, the source is right there. Unless I am seeing something different.
I have no idea what Fitz will do. I'm just hoping that he actually goes after Wilson, Plame, and ALL of their buddies. Russert would be the icing on the cake.
"This was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the CIA," Miller wrote in a first-person account over the weekend. Miller said this week that she never wrote a story about Wilson's wife because "it wasn't that important to me. I was focused on the main question: Was our WMD intelligence slanted?"
Actually what Miller wrote in her notes for that June 23 meeting was "Wife works in bureau?" then she told the grand jury what she thought that meant.
Also, she did not say she didn't write about Wilson's wife because it wasn't important to her. Quite the contrary; she wrote that she was upset that the Times allowed itself to be scooped by Novak.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether I ever pursued an article about Mr. Wilson and his wife. I told him I had not, though I considered her connection to the C.I.A. potentially newsworthy. I testified that I recalled recommending to editors that we pursue a story.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked my reaction to Mr. Novak's column. I told the grand jury I was annoyed at having been beaten on a story. I said I felt that since The Times had run Mr. Wilson's original essay, it had an obligation to explore any allegation that undercut his credibility. At the same time, I added, I also believed that the newspaper needed to pursue the possibility that the White House was unfairly attacking a critic of the administration.
See page 2 for the "Wife works in bureau?".
So says "reporters" with a stake in the outcome of the investigation who also appeared before the GJ and have no disclosed that to their readers and/or listeners.
Then Russert is a damn liar. EVERY "reporter" in DC knew about Valerie Plame because JOE WILSON told them "ON BACKGROUND"!
Russert has lost all credibility that he has ever had! Matt Cooper (Hillary's friend, Mandy Grunwald's husband) also burned Libby by giving out information he learned on "BACKGROUND" to keep from GOING TO JAIL WITH JUDITH. Even unethical "reporters" aren't happy with him about that according to Debra Orin, New York Post.
I don't know the reporter. What stake or interest do they have here? You say the reporter or author of this testified before the Grand Jury regarding this case? Are their rules against this?
What is "on background" if you don't mind me asking?
agreed...is this piece of trash anything other than an opinion piece???
Libbey and Russert, not Rove.
The Associated Press Plays Dumb
Jack Shafer
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2000, at 3:49 PM PT
Associated Press reporter Pete Yost played by the journalistic rules last Thursday when he granted anonymity to the sources who provided him with his big scoop: that Independent Counsel Robert Ray had impaneled a new grand jury to hear evidence against President Clinton. As Yost chased his own story on Thursday and Friday, publishing the peeved speculations of big-name Democrats that the sources were Republicans, he continued to follow the official rulebook. He kept a poker face, reported the facts, and protected his sources. But playing by the rules, in this instance, meant behaving unethically.
The sleazy thing about reporting the Democrats' speculations was that Yost knew that the speculations were basically wrong. As it turned out, one of Yost's sources was not a vengeful Republican but a Democrat on the federal bench.
Yost's scoop, which hit the wires at 3:29 p.m. ET on Thursday, made the Democrats mad as red ants. With Vice President Al Gore just hours from giving his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Democrats insisted that Republican leakers, determined to embarrass Gore on his big night, were behind Yost's story.
Yost's Thursday and Friday follow-up stories maintained that the "legal sources" for his scoop were "outside Ray's office," a qualification that did not rule out all Republicans.
snip
But by Friday evening, the confession of Appellate Court Judge Richard D. Cudahy in a bylineless Associated Press story largely exonerated the Republicans. Judge Cudahy said he inadvertently divulged the grand jury secret to a reporter--presumably Yost--during a press inquiry. Cudahy, who sits on the three-judge panel overseeing Independent Counsel Robert Ray, is an unlikely Republican agent: A Democrat, he was appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter.
'background' = 'off the record'
AP statement on anonymous sources
The following section on the use of anonymous sources is from a "Statement of News Values and Principles" being developed by AP:
Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers. Under AP's rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source.
3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source's identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted should copy editors allow it to be transmitted.
Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move some or all of the information back on the record.
Before agreeing to use anonymous source material, the reporter should ask how the source knows the information is accurate, ensuring that the source has direct knowledge. Reporters may not agree to a source's request that AP not pursue additional comment or information.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient — when material comes from an authoritative figure whose detail makes it clear and certain that the information is accurate.
We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it's relevant, we must describe the source's motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.
The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source's credibility; simply quoting "a source" is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: "according to top White House aides" or "a senior official in the British Foreign Office." The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.
When appropriate, attribution in the lead should read, "The Associated Press has learned," to be followed by more specific attribution in the next paragraph. This construction must be used only for rock-solid information from reliable sources, or where the AP has obtained authoritative written documentation.
We must not say that a person declined comment when he or she is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.
Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter's byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.
And all complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material — from inside or outside the AP — must be promptly brought to the news manager's attention.
Not everyone understands "off the record" or "on background" to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.
These are the AP's definitions:
On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.
Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication.
Background. The information can be published but only with the conditions set forth by the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.
Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.
In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.
ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES:
Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.
AP's basic rules for anonymous-source material apply to pickups as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of sourced material must be authorized by a manager. The story must be balanced, and comment must be sought.
Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own sources. We shouldn't hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If the source material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating member and note their description of their sources.
Tune in next week, when the AP tells us who leaked the Grand Jury testimony to them.
Great editorial. Thanks for posting the link
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20051019
To FReepin' dumb to just be a newbie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.