Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Counterpoint: Forget Confidentiality, Out Rove

By Bill Israel, Editor & Publisher. Posted July 6, 2005.


A colleague of Rove argues that the president's adviser is hiding behind the First Amendment and that reporters should not protect him.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In 99.9 percent of cases I know, journalists must not break the bonds of appropriate confidentiality, to protect their ability to report, and to defend the First Amendment. I've testified in court to that end, and would do so again.

But the Valerie Plame-CIA case that threatens jail time for reporters from Time and The New York Times this week is the exception that shatters the rule. In this case, journalists as a community have been played for patsies by the president's chief strategist, Karl Rove, and are enabling him to abuse the First Amendment, by their invoking it.

To understand why this case is exceptional, one must grasp the extent of Rove's political mastery, which became clearer to me by working with him. When we taught "Politics and the Press" together at The University of Texas at Austin seven years ago, Rove showed an amazing disdain for Texas political reporters. At the same time, he actively cultivated national reporters who could help him promote a Bush presidency.

In teaching with him, I learned Rove assumes command over any political enterprise he engages. He insists on absolute discipline from staff: nothing escapes him; no one who works with him moves without his direction. In Texas, though he was called "the prime minister" to Gov. George W. Bush, it might have been "Lord," as in the divine, for when it came to politics and policy, it was Rove who gave, and Rove who took away.

Little has changed since the Bush presidency; all roads still lead to Rove.

Consequently, when former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson challenged President Bush's embrace of the British notion that Saddam Hussein sought to import uranium from Niger to produce nuclear weapons, retaliation by Rove was never in doubt. While it is reporters Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of The New York Times who now face jail time, the retaliation came through Rove-uber-outlet Robert Novak, who blew the cover of Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove's lawyer said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information.") That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Rove's behavior, whether journalists published, or not.

For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters won't rat their relationship with the administration's most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment?

Karl Rove is in my experience with him the brightest and most affable of companions; perhaps I have been coopted, for I genuinely treasure his friendship. But neither charm nor political power should be permitted to subvert the First Amendment, which is intended to insure that reporters and citizens burrow fully and publicly into government, not insulate its players from felony, or reality.

Reporters with a gut fear of breaching confidential sources must fight like tigers to protect them. But neither reporters Cooper nor Miller, nor their publications, nor anyone in journalism should protect the behavior of Rove (or anyone else) through an undiscerning, blanket use of the First Amendment that weakens its protections by its gross misuse.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Bill Israel (letters@editorandpublisher.com) teaches journalism at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). He has worked for several leading newpapers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I've been making the same argument...
Posted by: bamage on Jul 6, 2005 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... far less cogently. Whoever "Slit Throat" turns out to be - they are most certainly a Machiavellian politicla conniver attempting to wrap an arguable breach of national security i a cloak of First Amendment confidentiality - sure sounds like classic Rove to me. I fail to grasp how First Amenmnet arguments apply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» By the way... Posted by: bamage
Responsible reporting should be #1 with Cooper & Miller
Posted by: J.ONEILLq on Jul 6, 2005 1:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it ironic everyone wants to keep the identity of a traitor secret.

I could understand , in the case of Nixon, where Felt was a good guy blowing the whistle on a group of bad characters, and they were made accountable for their mistakes

But this is a case of a really bad person outing someone who was working to do good for our country.Valerie Plame was risking her life to uncover WMD's in other countries, to protect the USA.

As a result of disclosing her identity, they have put in jeopardy an untold number of undercover agents, their lives and careers.

In my book, good still wins over evil......and I believe it is the difference between keeping informants names secret or not keeping them secret... it is a no brainer . There is no doubt....Who ever leaked her name was trying to hurt her and her family. The question is ??????? How many others were made to suffer because of this persons underhanded actions.

If you are right, it was Carl Rove, he should rot in jail. He has never worn an uniform, nor ever risked his life for our country. It just shows how low the leadership of this country has sunk

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Robert Novak Posted by: gramps
» RE: Robert Novak Posted by: mrsmagoo
Jackie Giles
Posted by: JackieGiles on Jul 6, 2005 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies are making Miller and Cooper choose between "the Lady or the Tiger". If they stand on the principal of confidentiality, they protect the Administration operative, presumably Karl Rove, from paying for the probable crime of outing Valerie Plame. It isn't as though Rove is a whistleblower, telling the Press about some Administration wrongdoing at the risk of losing his job or other retaliation--It's Karl at his "Rovest", the same guy who stole a political opponent's stationery to fabricate a damaging document and
had his own office bugged, then accused his candidate's opponent of doing it.

If they "out" Rove, Miller and Cooper risk the compromising the independence of the Press from the Government leaving whistleblowers naked to the winds of retribution. How many government employees would then dare to speak up for the public good?

Judith Miller claims to stand on principal, but I have trouble seeing her as a hero when I remember her on CBS's TV magazine show, 60 Minutes, opening abandoned refrigerators in Iraq, toadying to Bush's fiction that Saddam was busy manufacturing biological and chemical weapons. Her silence may be less protection of principal, than preservation of her cozy status with Dubya.

However this plays out, I confess to hoping we see Karl Rove do a "perp walk" and wearing appropriate "jewelry"--handcuffs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Semantics
Posted by: bookwoman on Jul 6, 2005 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again the Administration is parsing statements. "My client never knowingly revealed *****". As for this being Nixonian, as I recall it was the people at the level just below the President (the same level as Rove) who took the rap. Nixon never really did admit wrong doing.

However, that said, I think the use of the term, we should "out" Rove, is misleading as it is a term usually used with homosexuality, and this kind of misuse of accepted terminology against the Administration and their minions will be used to beat up whomever uses it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Semantics Posted by: magistre
dr
Posted by: jsandrin on Jul 6, 2005 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rove is hiding as the coward he is behind reporters covering for him and not naming him as THE source....Rove is a sinister man...Richard Nixon was a piker compared to him...Also,
Mr Novak revealed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent...why is not the federal prosecutor not going after him....another sleazebag like Rove....
Nothing would please me more than to see Rove being forced to frog or duck walk in handcuffs out of the White House...He is a crook and a manipulator!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dr Posted by: magistre
"Time to Boot Rove & Co."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 6, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bill, this is not a tennis match or a basketball game; K-K-Karl Rove, your "bestest buddy" is doing his best to help HIS "bestest buddies," the Bush Administration, to derail our American democratic system. Maybe YOU can hoist a beer with the guy, but the rest of us want him in jail.

I do agree with you on one thing though: that in this case, Rove should be outed, as well as what the President knew of Rove's actions – which I suspect is everything. Maybe that way, we can bring "The Wizard of Odd" Bush, and his "Wicked Witch of Washington" Rove, and their merry band of Fascists in Washington, to justice, kick them all out of office, and return some measure of sanity to our government – before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Time to Boot Rove & Co." Posted by: magistre
resada
Posted by: resada on Jul 6, 2005 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judith Miller supported the Bush administration by helping to spread the WMD lies, speaking of whitehouse sources who supplied "proof" of the WMD's. Again, she is seeking to protect and support the Whitehouse, using "reporter confidentiality" to protect Rove from exposure. This is not a First Amendment issue. The law was broken[it is illegal to reveal the identity of undercover CIA agents], and it needs to be treated as what it was. Criminals do not deserve to be protected from exposure of their crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: resada Posted by: kc4choice
associate director of debate
Posted by: wnewnam on Jul 6, 2005 6:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the closest commentary that I have read that has gotten it right. While protecting sources is important for the press to serve as a watchdog on government, that is not the case here! In fact, shielding a source that uses selective leaks to intimidate those who right articles of dissent perverts the purpose of protected sources. Whoever is responsible for leaking this information revealed information for the sole purpose of preventing the press from uncovering government wrongdoing. I have yet to see anyone else make the argument that shielding sources should not apply in the instance where reporters are being used by the most powerful members of the government to stifle free speech and free press. Does anyone remember that Joseph Wilson wrote an article criticizing the government and the government chose to punish him and his wife personally for his exercise of first amendment rights? That seems to create a far greater chilling effect than revealing the source that sent a chilling message to the press!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's take out Rove, put in Bill Israel
Posted by: lkurtz on Jul 7, 2005 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prof. Israel's insights into Karl Rove's behavior and its significance should be pondered far and wide. If we have to have a puppet president, let's at least get someone with a conscience and a concern for the people pulling the strings rather than Karl Rove. How about a Martin Sheen presidency with Israel as Chief of Staff?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between a rock and a rock
Posted by: kc4choice on Jul 7, 2005 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My limited understanding of how journalism and the 1st amendment works is that if a reporter promises confidentiality, that reporter is NOT protected under 1st amendment. AND, if that journalist reveals the anonymous source without the source's explicit permission, the source has grounds for a law suit against the journalist and the publication. Good journalists protect sources because without that provision we do not have equal access to media outlets and therefore do not have a sustainable democracy.

I would love to see Karl Rove go down IF he is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name. Yet, what I see with this situation is much more fundamental than this one story. Cooper (who was released by the source and therefore not jailed) and Miller are displaying an amazing amount of integrity. Journalists (like judges) should remain open-minded and fair; they don't get to make judgments about sources based on ideology or if the source is likable or not. They do however need to make sure the source is credible and believable. And, if they ever want to "get the scoop" from the next anonymous source, they better be willing to go to jail for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tomb
Posted by: tomb on Jul 7, 2005 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well one Rove shoe drooped! the next will be a sacrficial lamb
from the whitehouse to take the bullet for the president pro temp
(Rove).As for the reporter who is taking jail time this her reward to protect Rove. I hope our country can be saved from
the mess we are in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clinker
Posted by: cottontail on Jul 7, 2005 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judith Miller should do some hard time for her sleazy "journalism" on the WMD issue for the NYTimes. An appropriate cellmate would be Robert Novak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corruption is Corruption
Posted by: mendomama on Jul 7, 2005 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand all the stances taken in this thread with respect to this issue as it pertains to the First Ammendment. However, I really don't think it applies in this case. As someone else stated, if Rove were leaking secrets about government corruption, then he would deserve to be protected. But, there was no integrity in the information he leaked, the sole purpose was to cover up corruption - not expose it. Actually, if you look at the definition of treason as it applies to our country, Rove is clearly guilty of it by exposing Plame.

I agree that the First Ammendment is one of our most sacred, and must be protected, however, it was not intended to protect corruption, but to insure that those who expose corruption are protected. There is a distinct difference. If people think that Rove isn't smart enough to have known what he was doing in exposing Plame to journalists, then they don't realize just how dangerous this man is.

Karl Rove should not be allowed to twist and distort the sacred laws of our country, in order to protect and further corrupt an already disgustingly corrupt administration. At what point does everyone say that "enough is enough"? From lying to Congress and the American People and engaging in an illegal war, in which war crimes were clearly committed, to the blown cover of a CIA operative during war times (an aspect which elevates the severity of the treasonous act) in an effort to cover up any indications of said illegal war. At some point, something has to be done.

One thing that, through this last five years, has left me totally baffled, is the willilngness of our elected officials to just watch this all going on around them and not to a damn thing to stop it! Righties still like to bring up Clinton and how he "disgraced America with his lies", what happened to all those elected officials on THAT moral high ground? Where are they, now that lies are being used to wage an illegal war? A war that takes more and more lives everyday. I remember Bush saying something to the effect that his Administration would be one of accountability - well, where's the accountability? I think we should start with Rove - then just make our way down the list. If they were a bunch of democrats, I'd feel the same way. Corruption is Corruption - no matter what side of the fence it comes from.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the real story here?
Posted by: Dale on Jul 7, 2005 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I understand the concern everyone is expressing about protecting the First Amendment. I get that. I agree with that. No one should be able to force a journalist to reveal his or her source.

However, what is the real story here? Was Valerie Plame's association with the CIA a legitimate news story? Did Americans need to know anything about her? No. Karl Rove and the Bush Administration disclosed her identity to retaliate against a United States Ambassador and they broke federal law to do so. THAT'S the story. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that refuse to inform America when our president and his hired thugs break the law.

If Judith Miller got a phone interview with a wanted serial killer and he disclosed his identity and whereabouts to her, would she hide his identity to protect her "source"? I would assume she'd have a moral obligation to reveal his identity so he could be brought to justice. This is the same situation. Judith Miller was made aware of criminal acts inside the White House and she has a moral obligation to reveal that activity so these criminals can be prosecuted. A journalist’s obligation to protect her source should end when the source asks the journalist to conspire in breaking the law.

Is this a case of a reporter using the First Amendment to mask the identity of their source? No. This is a case of immoral reporters that appear to be conspiring with a criminal administration to deceive the American people. I will gladly defend any reporter pressured to reveal their source if that source is not instigating or conducting criminal activity, but I shed no tears for these two spending time in prison. I just wish Bob Novak were in there with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Journalism Business
Posted by: NotoriousBLG on Jul 7, 2005 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We would probably all do well to understand another reason why journalists keep their sources confidential: it's the biz. If Judith Miller were to reveal her source, her credentials would be shot and she would be reporting with her hands tied behind her back because no source could trust speaking to her off the record.

This is a very real bind in the journalism business. Even though she was tacitly complicit in committing a crime in revealing Plame's status, this still would not pass muster with sources. After all, how many confidential sources reveal information that could be prosecutable in one form or another, in civl if not criminal court?

The real question is why she even followed this story. What was actually gained by revealing Plame was a CIA agent? Was she so blind to see that it served no other purpose than as payback for Wilson's disagreement with the administration? She ostensibly did her job...but what was that job?

The problem with Judith Miller and other Inside-the Beltway reporters is their overdependence on confidential sources. Leaks are meant to unmask that which is hidden. The goal, however, is to make use of those leaks that have material value as a corrective to government secrecy. I don't see how this leak held any such value. Instead, it appears more like a juicy bit of gossip, the type that journalists today avidly latch on to for shock value (and increased newspaper circulation, so they hope). As such, it makes journalists rather easy to manipulate--like Miller, et al. One question thus raised is where was her executive editor, Bill Keller, when she really needed him to say: why are you following this story? What was it's point? Are we being spun with it? Any newspapers worth it's salt--and many are not these days--would compensate for spin through sound and smart editorial policy. I don't sense that here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Jul 7, 2005 8:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judith Miller's reputation as a reporter is already shot. She is taking the rap because "Government is too big" ---Huh?? She can rot in jail if she doesn't want give up that traitor Rove and I don't feel one bit sorry for her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rove is Pure Evil
Posted by: davidt on Jul 8, 2005 12:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sick and tired of hearing what a genius Rove is.

He should be hanged for treason because sure as hell he outed Valerie Plame as restribution for Joe Wilson's explicatory evidence about the Operation Yellowcake in the New York Times.

Hell, they couldn't bomb the NY Times building so soon after 9/11. Even the American sheeple wouldn't swallow that one.

When you have a craven lapdog press willing to lick spittle off of the president's shoes you can get anything that you want done.

They have stolen 2 elections, lied, cheated and stolen Amerca into an illegal personal vendetta called OIF, used a coward (Bush) and a prostitute (John O'Neill) to derail the presidential bid of a veteran who saw action and put his life on the line.

What was the media's reaction--Is the Swift Boat Veteran's book hurting John Kerry's chances at the presidency?

In the old days that book would have been taken off of the shelves, but not today.

Notice there was no story about Bushieboy's drug use since Kerry's prior history was clean of any drug problems. No, they couldn't pull a 50-50 on that one so they ignored it and concentrated on the gutless, Texas GOP-financed "Swift Boat" non-scandal then got red-faced like a priest at an orgy when it just wouldn't go away. Gee whizums, waddyaknow about that?

Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Noonan, Krauthammer, Novak, Carlson, Gingrich and our Gadabout Gambling Goiter Bill Bennett can spray their poison all over the airwaves and be sought out and interviewed by our giddy media.

Where was the story about Limbaugh's addiction? Steve Bush's scandalous divorce from his wife of 12 years? Wendi Gramm's seat on the board at Enron after she paved the way for their thievery by serving on the Futures and Trading Commission? Kenny-Boy's donation of his personal jet to provide transportation of all the Bushie to the inaugural ball? The criminal behavior of Tom DeLay to push through the Medicare Bill or whatever he was paid off to do?

If they did cover these stories out come the Right-wing whiners, WAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Liberal Biiiiiiiasssssssss!!!!!!

No Rove is no genius, just an evil opportuninst who plays on the fears and prejudices of an ignorant and demoralized American populace left to decipher fact from fiction by a pusillanimous press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ove is Pure Evil Posted by: verna1914
» RE: ove is Pure Evil Posted by: davidt