[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]

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?

[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?

[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.

[jjmcgo]

I'd love to see the Washington Post's internal critiques on MD4BUSH.
I can't see how anyone could be proud of the paper's role in that story.
Unless they were a Democratic Party operative working as a journalist.

[RobFromGa]

They can dish it out but they can't take it.

What a bunch of spoiled brats. They make their living from leaks and they expect that their actual words are never going to come back to haunt them...