Replies

Thank you for the ping, Grampa Dave. With all respect to each of you, speaking as one who knows the media from the inside, please be VERY skeptical of "leaks" designed only to backfire on the supposed source of the leak.

I have been highly skeptical of this whole Wilson matter from the beginning. Even this morning, when responding to a poster named AnitGuv's dark (and silly) assertions that the CIA had "fired one across the Administration's bow" this weekend, I concluded with the following (at 11:45am PDT):

"However, I don't believe it to be true. Rather, I believe the far simpler and more logical answer is that Wilson, a Dem operative, has cooked up his 'outrage' — and perhaps even the leak, itself (if there really was one) — in order to create a 'scandal' in time to help the Dems in 2004."

Please keep in mind the fact that reporters obtain information in a variety of ways — some above-board, and some not. Except if one of their own editors asks, reporters never have to reveal their sources to anyone. Most of the time, editors don't ask, and this is especially true for their star reporters. It is human nature that, when given such power, some people will abuse it. What this means is that reporters can MAKE UP SOURCES. More often, they combine bits and pieces of information they've obtained from several sources (direct human contact, or print, or broadcast, or what they've managed to see laying on top of someone's desk) and weave them into a STORY — a TALE.

I can't emphasize this enough: The media is in the business of selling advertising. Their stock in trade is a good, juicy STORY — TALE — GOSSIP. All of the hooey about objectivity, and being accurate with facts, and such is just marketing to get the public to trust them far more than they deserve. If the public eats up their stories, they get to charge big bucks for advertising.

As for leaks, some are genuine and intended to provide information to the public in a "soft," indirect way. Common examples: "A source close to the investigation said..." "A senior campaign official said..." Most genuine leaks are of this variety. (Personally, I think leaks of this kind are used all too frequently and unnecessarily.)

Other, less common leaks come from people who genuinely see themselves as whistle blowers or who otherwise believe they are acting in the public interest, but who are afraid of the personal consequences to them if they went public.

The third and fourth categories of leaks are the most insidious and difficult to spot: (a) the type where someone really does leak, but for a malicious purpose, and (b) the type where the report makes up a source as a "vessel" for bits and pieces of info the reporter is weaving into a story. The leaking of Anita Hill's name to the media during the Clarence Thomas hearings was one such example of a malicious leak. So, too, is this Wilson story.

As for the non-existent source and phony facts, we've seen several examples over the years of some reporters getting caught at this — the latest being the Jayson Blair fiasco at the NYT.

So as intelligent consumers of news, I urge each of you to cultivate some healthy skepticism about all news, but most especially the political variety. There are an awful lot of honorable and less-than-honorable people out there with an awful lot of agendas to push.

re: 443 thank you.

I sense Novak is in cover-his-ass mode too.

Novak says admin officials AND CIA told him about the wife.

Maybe he's making it up. He already knew, wanted to "sex up" his report and make himself seem more important.

Thanks for the flag.
I try to ignore any press hullaballoo about Iraq, Bush, and WMDs for at least a week. Most of it's off the mark, and irrelevant even when it isn't.

You're right. And add to the Leak Syndrome the fact that reporters and "media experts" many times attend the same parties and functions where a lot of chatting is going on. (I stated earlier that Wilson is listed as a "Media Resource" by the Middle East Institute.)

It's truly an effort by the incestuous bunch to make President Bush and his administration look like liars with something to hide. Didn't work in July and it won't work this time. WE WON'T LET THEIR LITTLE SCHEME WORK, WILL WE, FREEPERS?

What this means is that reporters can MAKE UP SOURCES.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. It's just too easy for a reporter to put out a juicy story and claim journalistic ethics (I would never reveal my sources). Who's to ever know if the source even exists?

You're right on ALL accounts and laid it all out simply, to boot. Job excellently done.