Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
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

Access To Evil

By Greg Palast, AlterNet. Posted July 15, 2005.


As Karl Rove chuckles and Judy does time, what are Miller and The New York Times doing: protecting a source or covering up their conduit to the Bush gang's machinery of deception?
Advertisement

The only thing more evil, small-minded and treacherous than the Bush Administration's jailing Judith Miller for a crime the Bush Administration committed, is Judith Miller covering up her Bush Administration "source."

Judy, Karl Rove ain't no "source." A confidential source -- and I've worked with many -- is an insider ready to put himself on the line to blow the whistle on an official lie or hidden danger. I would protect a source's name with my life and fortune as would any journalist who's not a craven jerk (the managing editor of Time magazine comes to mind).

But the weasel who whispered "Valerie Plame" in Miller's ear was no source. Whether it was Karl Rove or some other Rove-a-tron inside the Bush regime (and no one outside Bush's band would have had this information), this was an official using his official info to commit a crime for the sole purpose of punishing a real whistleblower, Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, for questioning our President's mythological premise for war in Iraq.

New York Times reporter Miller and her paper would rather she go to prison for four months than identify their "source." Why?

Part of her oddball defense is that the Times never ran the story about Wilson's wife. They get no points for that. The Times should have run the story with the headline, Bush Operative Commits Felony To Punish Whistleblower. The lead paragraph should have been,

"Today, Mr. K--- R--- [or other slime ball as appropriate] attempted to plant sensitive intelligence information in The New York Times, a felony offense, in an attempt to harm former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who challenged the President's claim regarding Iraq's nuclear program."

A Karl Rove or Rove-like creature peddling a back-door smear doesn't make him a source. Miller's real crime is not concealing a source, but burying the story. A reporter should never, ever give notes to a grand jury, but this information is something the Times owes the public, not the prosecutors.

Why didn't the Times run this story? Why not now? Who are they covering for and why?

Maybe the problem for the New York Times is that this is the same "source" that used Miller to promote, as fact, her ersatz report before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam truly had nukes and bugs and chemicals he could launch at Los Angeles. That "source" too needs publication, Judy.

Every rule has an exception. My mama always told me to "compliment the chef" at dinner. But that doesn't apply when the chef pees in your soup. Likewise, there's an exception to the rule of source protection. When officialdom uses "you-can't-use-my-name" to cover a lie, the official is not a source, but a disinformation propagandist -- and Miller and the Times have been all too willing to play Izvestia to the Bush's Kremlinesque prevarications. And that is what Miller is protecting: the evil called "access."

The great poison in the corpus of American journalism is the lust for tidbits of supposedly "inside" information which is more often than not inside misinformation parading as hot news.

And thus we have Miller sucking on the steaming sewage pipe of White House lies about Iraq and spitting it out in the pages of the Times as "investigative reporting," for which the Times has apologized. Likewise, we had the embarrassment of Bob Woodward's special access to the Oval Office after the September 11 attacks when Woodward reported the exclusive news that the President was a flawless commander-in-chief in the war on terror -- for which Woodward has yet to apologize.

While reporting from the Potemkin village of decision-making set up for him at the White House, Woodward missed the real story that, in the words of the Downing Street memo, our leaders were losing track of Osama while they spent their time "fixing the intelligence" on Iraq. Even if Woodward learned of it, would he have reported it at the risk of losing his access to evil?

As Karl Rove chuckles and Judy does time, we are left to ask, What are Miller and The New York Times doing: protecting the name of a source or covering up their conduit to the Bush gang's machinery of deception?

One can only be sympathetic to Miller for choosing jail over bending to the power of the State. But as T.S. Eliot said,

"The last temptation is the greatest treason,
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

Digg!

Greg Palast is the author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

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:
Karl Rove heard it from the Media
Posted by: TheJacksonFive on Jul 15, 2005 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The funniest thing about this incident is that Karl Rove heard it from the press. A lot of us did. Are we all guilty of passing along news? HaHa. A liberal reporter is in jail and Robert Novak has done nothing illegal and remains free. The real story here is that liberals have shot themselves in the foot once again.

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

» RE: Karl Rove heard it from the Media Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: TheJacksonFive--Typical Fox News Viewer Posted by: treehuggingliberal
» RE: Karl Rove heard it from the Media Posted by: BlueStateBitch
Greg Palast does it again
Posted by: treehuggingliberal on Jul 15, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While everyone else is applauding Miller's "ethics", Greg Palast once again raises the questions that no one else will. Thanks for doing your part!

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

Wanted: An Adversarial News Media
Posted by: thirdmg on Jul 15, 2005 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best thing to come out of the Rove scandal so far is that some in the news media have gotten their own ox gored by this adminstration. Maybe, now, our supine news media will return to being adversarial instead of kissing up to the administration.

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

Unpleasant Taste
Posted by: michael40 on Jul 15, 2005 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although, I am quite interested in the Rove story, and I've admired Palast's work for some years, I find, this morning, the cynical and emtionally over-wrought aspects of his story-telling unpleasant. I don't want my sources of news to tell me what to think, or to be hysterical. "Weasel", "Rove-a-tron", "slime-ball" - not only are these kinds of pujorative histrionics better left for comic books, but it isn't at all clear what they really mean except that the writer doesn't like whoever they are being used to describe.

Based on the other information in Palast's story, I'm quite capable of forming critical assessments of the players. I'm not an idiot or a child. The histrionics actually begin to make me suspicious of the writer (the truth of the claims, the motives for making them) rather than cementing my opinion in the mould being cast by the writer.

I'm hoping for an alternative journalism that can avoid the kinds of hyperbolic righteousness so often associated with alt press, and which so often limits readership.

My two-cents...

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

» RE: Unpleasant Taste Posted by: Wacre
» This ain't business as usual Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Unpleasant Taste Posted by: nickptar
Best American Journalist: Greg Palast
Posted by: eugenie on Jul 15, 2005 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a shame he has to work for a British newspaper.

The NYT editorial board should be in the clink with Miller for misleading the American people into Iraq. If I knew all that stuff was lies in the fall of 2002 (thanks in part to Mr. Palast), you can bet the NYT knew it.

And why is anybody on Alternet continuing to respond to TheJacksonFive poster? He's just baiting you, guys.

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

What would make sense?
Posted by: dancerkc on Jul 16, 2005 12:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if there is a more sensible explanation for Miller's behavior in not talking and in going to jail. I think redemption with the rest of the press is a bit of a stretch but what is this stuff that Rove claims to have learned it from the press?

We think we know what Rove must have said. But what about Cheney as a source? He was the one personally going to Langley to harass the CIA for something that looked like what he already decided should have been there. Maybe Cheney ran across Valerie at the CIA. Maybe Cheney spilled to Miller who spilled to Rove.

Was there a quid pro special favor from Karl to Miller such as access to Cheney or W as a payment for her WMD coverage, in essence being a White House WMD shill?

Miller was deeply involved in pushing WMD and Plame was analyzing the WMD threat potential so maybe Miller found out on her own. Maybe that would make more sense and maybe she isn't really protecting a source. Or maybe she is protecting a source but not the one we think.

Anyway, all this speculation is logical enough but also a touch ironic because it bears a light similarity to what Cheney was doing in pushing the CIA to produce information which fit his speculations about Iraq, speculations Cheney insisted were real.

Then again maybe she's just digging in her heels on Fitzgerald. Miller has been described as having sharp elbows so maybe she is just being testy.

Maybe, maybe, probably, could be, maybe. Basta! Give me facts.

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