WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, MR. NOVAK??

vanity | 11/03/2005 | Sam Katz

[samkatz]

For two years, the “mainstream media” have published one side of the so-called “Plame Affair”. Commentary that sheds light on the truth about the Wilsons, their agenda or their lies have pretty much been limited to “right wing” media. Think about it. Does anyone you know who is not a regular Freeper or reader of NRO have any perspective other than that of the mainstream press? The answer is probably “no.”

Who is there to tell the real story ? The subjects of the witch-hunt are straight-jacketed by the Grand Jury. No Republican serving in any official capicity can EVER shed light on the Wilson’s motives or affiliations. This would provoke cries of “retaliation” by the left and the media. The shackles on the administration are permanent. Only a respected member of the “mainstream media”can set the record straight. That person is the columnist who started at the center of the probe, Robert Novak.

Novak has information none of us do and a unique perspective. As a potential target of the prosecuter, he remained virtually silent until August 1, 2005. In his column “Correcting the CIA”, Novak corrected misconceptions and distortions about the case. Writing against the advice of his attorneys, he debunked the myth of Ms Plame’s “covert status”. He exposed the lie that Ms. Plame had no role in sending her husband to Niger. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2005/08/01/155068.html

Novak, despite his conservative perspective is well respected journalist with a column in the mainstream press, a broad readership, and near celebrity status. Mathew Cooper and Judith Miller have incesantly told their stories in print and electronic media. Novak has an opportunity or even “duty” to give the world the picture it’s not getting, and cap off nearly 50 years of distinguished journalism. Please, Mr. Novak, go do it.

[jw777]

i can't understand why he isn't the responsible party here and even if he isn't why he hasn't been forced to give up his source or go to jail, like miller! after all, it is Novak, who published the name PLAME. No one knew anything of her outside the beltway, till then.

[calrighty]

Good question!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No Republican serving in any official capicity can EVER shed light on the Wilson’s motives or affiliations. This would provoke cries of “retaliation” by the left and the media. The shackles on the administration are permanent. Only a respected member of the “mainstream media”can set the record straight. That person is the columnist who started at the center of the probe, Robert Novak.

. . . Novak, despite his conservative perspective is well respected journalist with a column in the mainstream press, a broad readership, and near celebrity status. Mathew Cooper and Judith Miller have incesantly told their stories in print and electronic media. Novak has an opportunity or even “duty” to give the world the picture it’s not getting, and cap off nearly 50 years of distinguished journalism. Please, Mr. Novak, go do it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are buying a con. The First Amendment doesn't say that members of the press are objective - it says that they can't be prosecuted even if the government can prove they are not objective.

The First Amendment also doesn't say that "journalists" are coextensive with "members of the press." Consider:

• book publishers are protected members of "the press" irrespective of the deadlines they work under - or don't work under, and

• broadcast journalists are subject to licensing requirements which are incompatible with First Amendment freedom.

The irony of journalism is that many people take journalism's reports as dispositive even though journalists claim to be objective. Objectivity is a virtue, and anyone who claims a virtue - and argues politics on the basis that they have that virtue - is arrogant.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

FCC licensees are subject to licensing. Not journalists who work for them.

[KC Burke]

Thaks for the townhall link. I think I only saw part of that column.

Now that the forger states he was paid by France, Wilson's ex-wife's strange status as a former French government employee and many other things are now on the table, I hope Novak strings this whole stringer of stinking fish together and lifts them out of the water for all to see.

[SaxxonWoods]

I read that Novak has testified to Fitzy and given him the source. I have not seen anything about a gag order on Novak. What gives, Mr. Novak? Got a book in process?

[frankjr]

Maybe Novak wants to maintain the confidentiality of his sources (at least from the general public). If Libby's attorneys believe Novak has info that may help him, they can subpoena him.

[cubreporter]

Only a respected member of the “mainstream media”can set the record straight. That person is the columnist who started at the center of the probe, Robert Novak.



That's what I say. That's what Rush says.

[hoosiermama]

Didn't Kovak say he would tell us his source after the GJ reported....That we'd laugh.

Well.......tap ....tap.....tap....tap..........We're waiting.

[samkatz]

Hi. I'm not saying that any law says reports/journalists, etc have to be fair and objective. Truth be told, if you go back a hundred years, newspapers were always highly ideological and sensational.

But I do think that we have a "right", legally and morally, to complain and air our disgust when print or electronic news people who pretend to be "reporters" are overtly biased.

Look, Rush Limbaugh and his protegees get on the air and say "I'm a right winger and this is my take on events". Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Will, Krauthammer are columnists who are giving opinions.

Way back when I took journalism classes, they taught that news writers/reporters were supposed to speak in an objective voice etc. Editorialism is a diff standard. So when the Times headlines "Sunni's Fail to Stop Constitution", or Assoc Press in a news release says "yielding to extreme right wing opposition, an embarrassed Pres Bush w/draws Miers"[not a direct quote]
do I have a right to be pissed, sure...

[ricoshea]

I think I had read that Novak said he would tell us all who his source was after the Special Counsel was done.Well tap tap tap we are waiting for you Mr Novak!

[Anselma]

Re Novak in hiding- maybe he's been advised by his attorney not to speak out (yet?) and maybe there will be another, separate, criminal case, involving him as a witness.

Still, it's noteworthy that Novak was never mentioned in Fitz's perjury/obstruction charges, so can't we assume that it WASN'T Libby who "leaked" to him? I believe Novak said that, in essence. And we DO know that Novak was talking with the CIA about Plame, so maybe it was someone there who did and Novak can't talk about it yet.

It's got to be something legal holding Novak back, and not about the Plame "leak" directly- else he'd be selling his story. I just hope it isn't something that can trip up Dick Cheney.

[t2buckeye]

Maybe he DID reveal his source to Fitz BUT perhaps the source himself/herself is classified? I have to say..he SAID he would discuss it after the case. What is he waiting for?

[Anselma]

'Only a respected member of the “mainstream media”can set the record straight. That person is the columnist who started at the center of the probe, Robert Novak.'

Rubbish, I say! Don't we have Rush on our side? Didn't Bush win- twice? Don't we have both chambers in Congress? Does that mean we continue the Left's self-asssigned name as the "mainstream media"? Calling them that gives them cover- and respectability- that they shouldn't have. It also heavily implies that anyone outside their ken is therefore not reflective of most Americans' thinking.

We need another name for those weasels, reflecting THEIR marginal, fringe, Leftist ideas. Something like, "MLM" for Marginal Leftist Media. The conservatives should be called "mainstream". But then I'd have to change my tag line.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

FCC licensees are subject to licensing. Not journalists who work for them.

Suppose a journalist wants to say something which violates FCC rules, and does so. If the FCC pulls the license from the licensee, the fact that the journalist isn't the licensee would be moot, wouldn't it?

Suppose you want to publish a newspaper. Do you apply for a license, or do you just buy the printing press and have at it? Now suppose you want to be a broadcast journalist. Do you just broadcast, or are you limited to trying to work for someone who has a license?

If you want to publish a newspaper you just do it; if you want to be a broadcast journalist you have to have the government's OK - directly or vicariously. It's silly to claim that broadcast journalism is "the press," "the freedom" of which shall not be "abridged."

It all traces back to the "objective journalism" con. Only if you accept the conceit that The New York Times et al are objective - an assumption which the intent of the First Amendment makes entirely irrelevant in law - would promotion by the government of the perspective of The New York Times by government-licensed broadcasters obviously be in the public interest.

But someone just might be churlish enough to point out that even if you think that the rules of journalism determine journalism's "story selection," those rules have no constitutional standing whatsoever. Those rules are merely commercial - following those rules (e.g., "if it bleeds it leads") tends to enable the newspaper or broadcaster to attract attention and thus to be able to profitably sell newspapers and/or advertising. "If it bleeds it leads" simply counsels sensationalism; it has nothing to say about (for example) dedicating a lot of space/time to Osama ben Laden before 9/11/01.

Thanks to First Amendment freedom, we-the-people had the ability to learn a good deal about OBL even before 911. But to find OBL given his proper due before 911, you would have had to have read a nonfiction book on the subject, or perhaps a feature in Reader's Digest. Certainly not a tabloid newspaper featuring salacious material. "Objective" journalism which purports to be "the first draft of history" is a self-important humbug.

Dedication of "the public airwaves" to journalism is not in the public interest. Admittedly it interests the public, but that is not the same as forwarding "the public interest."

[rcocean]

I'll take Novak over his critics any day of the week.

I just wish FNC would hire him.

I couldn't care less about the Phlame Affair. Fitzy found no criminal conduct in outing Phlame - just that Scooter didn't tell the whole truth to the Grand Jury.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

No question broadcasters have a different discipline. This goes back to public ownership (whenever that was) of airwaves. I worked as a radio/TV reporter out of college and never worried about my employer's license. The AP Style book and Libel Manual was my main guidepost.

[Cboldt]

Didn't Kovak say he would tell us his source after the GJ reported.

Ha ha - joke is on you!!

QUESTION: I think you, kind of, answered this but I assume that you have no plans and don't even think you'd be allowed to issue a final report of any sort.

FITZGERALD: You're correct. But let me explain that.

I think what people may be confused about is that reports used to be issued by independent counsels. And one of the complaints about the independent counsel statute was that an ordinary citizen, when investigated, they're charged with a crime or they're not; they're not charged with a crime, people don't talk about it.

Because of the interest in making sure that -- well, there's an interest in independent counsels to making sure those investigations were done thoroughly but then people ended up issuing reports for people not charged. And one of the criticisms leveled was that you should not issue reports about people who are not charged with a crime.

That statute lapsed. I'm not an independent counsel, and I do not have the authority to write a report, and, frankly, I don't think I should have that authority. I think we should conduct this like any other criminal investigation: charge someone or be quiet.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This goes back to public ownership (whenever that was) of airwaves.

Whenever you see the word "public" you should mentally check to see whether or not the writer or speaker means anything other than "government" by it. Usually that will not be the case.