A Leaky Post Newsroom

mediabistro ^ | Nov 17, 2005 | FishbowlDC

[james500]

The Post's internal critiques are proving to be a real opportunity for internal discussion -- and the critiques in the wake of the Bob Woodward controversy of this week are no exception.

Now in the wake of more revelations and debates over leaked information, the internal message boards are humming with a debate over, well, leaks from the message boards.

Today they're debating the propriety of the critiques, given that the more interesting ones often end up leaking outside the newsroom--and being posted on blogs, running in Washingtonian magazine, and even--horror of horrors--being quoted by Howard Kurtz in the paper itself.

"I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality? Many readers say they distrust us. Well, now I find myself wondering if we can trust each other," the Post's Jonathan Yardley writes.

Full debate after the jump.

[james500]

"These tradeoffs that we make--arguably to tell what we believe are revelatory stories--are often well beyond the understanding of our readers who go about their lives in worlds in which comments, good and bad, are attached to the names of real people they can go back and question."

[Bob J]

Wow. The media can't handled being treated the way they treat everyne else every day of their lives.

They must be special or sumptin'.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality?"

Odd, I thought this was the same argument the president uses when the LMSM and their rat cohorts demand documents. And WaPo certainly did not grant such slack to the WH.

[Lancey Howard]

WOW!! Liberals Gone Wild!

Here's one of my favorite entries:

Jonathan Krim: Alas, leakage of newsroom critique boards, internal memos, etc.is likely a fact of life. Caveat emptor, though it would be a shame if debate here is stifled as a result. Back to the matter at hand: Not discussed directly in this forum, but effectively used by others to bludgeon us this morning, was the question of a reporter "exempting" himself from the Plame story and then appearing on TV as a pundit -- and washington post representative -- trashing the fitzgerald probe as much ado about gossip.

I wonder if these gossipers are more concerned that Fitzgerald successfully convicts a Bush official than anything else. I think they're mostly irate about Woodward jeopardizing the prosecution.

[Lancey Howard]

Jonathan Yardley: The comment of mine two paragraphs above has been leaked, presumably by someone in the newsroom, to the New York Times. Katharine Seelye called me an hour ago pressing for further comment. I declined, stressing that this is a confidential internal critique written solely for the news staff of TWP and refusing to authorize her to quote from it. She called back half an hour later to say that her editor had told her to go ahead and quote from the comment anyway. I told her I expected her to make plain that this is a confidential internal document and that she is quoting from it over the objections of the person who wrote it. She said she would. We'll see.

How great is this? The Democrats from two Democrat newspapers are going to eat each other alive.
Hopefully.

[Lancey Howard]

Here's the "leaked" comment "two paragraphs above" that Yardley was talking about:

Jonathan Yardley:To the matter rightly raised by Chuck Babington: This is the logical and perhaps inevitable outcome when an institution permits an individual to become larger than the institution itself. However able and accomplished the individual -- and I agree that Woodward is both -- the institution pays the cost when he or she is permitted to operate within its purview yet under a different set of rules. There are a few others on the paper about whom the same could be said. Perhaps the current embarrassment (for embarrassment it most certainly is) will provide the occasion for re-examining the star system and its attendant risks. This is a big, influential newspaper, one of perhaps the half-dozen best in the world, but it will never be fully mature until it understands that the institution's interests take priority over any employee's, and until it puts that understanding into practice. Judy Miller was granted star status, and look what happened to her -- and to the Times.

[Lancey Howard]

Glenn Kessler:I view this chatboard as the written equivalent of conversations around the water cooler. How many people would we quote thirdhand in the newspaper unless we got those quotes confirmed from the source? Granted, in this case, the comments were written, which allowed the Times to decide they had enough confirmation to use the comments even though Yardley refused to talk about them. But that fact gives every one of us an even greater obligation to keep this chatter among ourselves.

Shhhhhhh.... I won't tell anybody.

[Lancey Howard]

Click on the link below the thread title to read all the chatter.
This is truly amazing stuff.

Bookmarked.

[Lancey Howard]

Is Free Republic prohibited from posting all the leaked comments at that site "as is"?
If so, that would be pretty ironic, wouldn't it?

[Howlin]

This is really getting good, isn't it?

I'm loving watching them all turn on Woodward.

Funny though, they didn't feel that way when CNN and/or Eason Jordan "covered" for Saddam so they could stay "in country" and report "the truth" to us, did they?

[Socratic]

So, we might have the NYT's queeen of the Star System - Ms. MoDo - dedicating a column to the WaPo.s reigning king. What irony that would be.

[Lancey Howard]

Check out all the comments. There's a few people really sticking up for Woodward.

[Bob J]

21st century journalism is an incestuous cesspool of maggots and vipers.

[cpdiii]

This brings up an interesting points. It is now obvious that Valarie Palmes status as a CIA employee was common knowledge amongst the press corp. If it was common knowledge and also revealed by her husband in casual conversations with other politicos in Washington DC, she was most definitely NOT a covert agent.

1. Why would Scooter Libby lie about where he heard about Valarie Palm if revealing her name and job was not a crime. Please note, Scooter Libby has been charged with perjury not with revealing the name of a covert agent.
2. Did Tim Russert lie when he said he was not the source of information to Scooter Libby and did he lie so he could nail the Bush administration.
3. Is Scooters Libby's memory bad and or Tim Russerts memory bad. Otherwise either Russert or Libby is lying.
4. Since Valarie Palme was not a covert agent, why would Scooter Libby lie about what he did or did not say?

[OldFriend]

The media is using Woodward to keep the attention off of them.

They were willing participants in the smear of Rove and now they're paying for thier disgusting attacks.

[Cboldt]

This brings up an interesting points. It is now obvious that Valarie Palmes status as a CIA employee was common knowledge amongst the press corp. If it was common knowledge and also revealed by her husband in casual conversations with other politicos in Washington DC, she was most definitely NOT a covert agent.

I wonder why the WH capitulated to the independent counsel requests when they were raised by Schumer, et al; and why not instead assert exactly what you hint at - "There was no outing of a covert agent, and we aim to discredit Wilson."

Instead we have President Bush, to this day, asserting thatteh investigation is a serious one. The President is lending gravitas to Fitz's investigation. Why?

As for Libby's conduct, he probably thought he would not be caught in a lie, or in the alternative, if caught, not charged. The motive is to avoid disclosure that somebody in the WH was working to discredit Wilson, or even simply to avoid getting in trouble for "leaking," even though the leak wasn't illegal. Rumor has it, President Bush does not retain leakers. IOW, a his conduct before the GJ and investigators may have been simple "self-preservation."

[mewzilla]

"I hardly see any point in having critiques and comments if they are to be publicized outside the paper. How can we write candidly when candor merely invites violations of confidentiality?

Hypocrites.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

The arrogance of these "professionals" amazes me. I try to be objective. Would I feel the same if this was Bubba's administration? Maybe. Probably not. It goes to character.

President Bush did not wag his finger in the faces of the entire country and deny having sex with "that woman." Regrdless of the charges hurled at President Bush, there has not been one credible witness to step forward (Juanita Broderick comes to mind). Bubba had a pattern of behavior which lent credibilty to those charges.

That being said as a disclaimer, I have to side with Woodward. He was writing a book. The subject came up in the course of researching the book. "Joe's wife" was not revealed to him as part of a smear campaign.

Woodward talked to Card. He talked to Libby. Fitzpatrick had the call logs. Surely Woodward's name was on a log. Fitzpatrick chose not to call the keeper of one of the biggest secrets in my lifetime, known to have sources deep in the CIA, someone with almost unlimited access to the White House. Fitzpatrick chose not to call someone who was on record from the very beginning as saying "Don't go down that road." Fitzpatrick chose not to call someone who as much as warned his colleagues they will be burned.

The criticism from both sides seems to be he should have come forward. He should have told what he knew. What he should have done is open for debate. But he was not legally compelled to step forward.

The keeper of the secrets may have a few more secrets. And regardless of what he should have done, he is a reporter. This is his bread and butter. This is how he makes his living.

I have posted the following twice, this will be the last time (promise):

From the WP article:
"...Woodward said yesterday that he was "quite aggressively reporting" a story related to the Plame case when he told Downie about his involvement as the term of Fitzgerald's grand jury was set to expire on Oct. 28...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601286_2.html

One can only speculate his story may be about Joe and Valerie and the CIA. The keeper of the secrets may have been working on the real issue of this mess.

The question needs to be asked and answered....why would Fitzpatrick not call someone who may have a motherload of information? Only Fitz can answer that question.

[Sacajaweau]

I haven't heard Joe's name mentioned on the news for at least 18 hours. It's all about the strategy for withdrawal of our troops. The Dems vote to go to Iraq was based on years of intelligence not just Joe's trip.

Hillary has been silent. She made a statement on Russert's show and I believe it was just after we went to Baghdad.

Hillary said and I think this is pretty close: Regime Change has been the policy of the Democratic Party since 1998. Please note that she would have been in direct conflict with Kerry.

We've been in Korea for how many years? The estimates for Iraq is 10-15 years. Are we still in Bosnia? I believe that was supposed to be a one year stint. The withdrawal in Iraq will occur when..."It's time". Leaving them without the capabilities of defending themselves......Well, we might as well give the country to Zawquawi on a platter.

[mewzilla]

Dick Morris was on O'Reilly last night and he said something that made what the Toons are doing completely clear: They're andwith Hillie trying to shore up the center/right wings of the party. And they apparently thing think their party is dumb enough to fall for it.

The real test will come when someone asks Hillie if she agrees with what Bubba's been saying. And where he's been saying it.