Not exactly evidence that they’re willing to fabricate anything, or that they ever have, either.
I wouldn’t say that. Any whistleblower probably has some sort of ax to grind. There are a number of factors to consider:
Accuracy: Did he lie to the reporter, tell (what he believes to be) the truth, or simply pass something along without vouching for its accuracy?
Context: Is his information relevant to a larger story, or is he simply leaking secrets for the hell of it? What are the consequences of revealing this information?
Future implications: How will reporting be affected if people who fit this source’s profile are no longer willing to come forward?
Intent: What was his motivation for revealing this to the reporter?
You’d say the same about Novak’s source, right? I’d be surprised if exposing a CIA agent weren’t a bigger crime than typing up some fake documents.
No, but definately evidence that they are not trustworthy to report the truth. That they do not vette the information they report enough.
You are still confusing me. How again do you want to protect CBS’s source but out Novaks? Because Novaks source was not part of a larger story? Because the leak was damaging to national security? Because you don’t care if administration officials ever come forward again? Because the motivation of those officials in this particular case was partisan?
While we are hijacking this thread, let me state for the record, I am not very impressed with the press’s right to keep sources confidential. I don’t make a big deal out of it or call for us to drop it, but I am not all that interested in defending the press’s right not to name their sources. So, having said that, I would call for the outing of CBS’s as well as Novaks sources in the stories we are discusing.
Yes. The only factor on the source’s side is accuracy. The outing of Plame had no journalistic purpose, it damaged national security and risked lives, and it was done as political revenge; and if future sources are no longer willing to out CIA agents as revenge, that won’t be a bad thing. I hope that’s enough for you, because I feel like I’ve explained this many times already.
Meanwhile, Burkett’s alleged misdeeds were an attempt to mislead the voting public to the point of effecting the election for personal reasons. AND he did it with false information.
I’m sorry, I know you have explained this several times. But I am still confused. The only (or at least the primary) journalistic purpose is for the story to be juicy enough to sell papers. In the Plame case IIRC the story centered around a charge of partisanship on the part of her husband? Her position was used as evidence that the he had a motive for the partisanship. I agree that this is pretty thin. As I said, I do not think Novak’s source deserves to be protected. But, for me, that is because he broke the law in revealing the information. For you it seems to be for violating some nebulous ethic (which does not include lying).
Perhaps my confusion is a result of not understanding what you mean by journalistic purpose. You are claiming that the story or the source has to be perfomring some sort of civic good, aren’t you? Can you let me know who is supposed to decide this? And based on what criteria.
Lastly, if you would rather drop it I will understand. Just tell me you are board of this particular hijack and I will not bring it up again.
No, the only factor isn’t the sources “accuracy.” The major factor is that this “source” attempted to comit a fraud on the public. A “source” that typed up documents and attempted to pass them off as authentic military docs. So it isn’t the passive “accuracy” – it’s the more active “fraud.” And the larger question – since CBS appears finally ready to admit they used faked documents – what are they going to do about this “source,” after they acknowledge that the documents are counterfeits?
IF this “source” admits that he comitted a fraud than CBS owes NO duty of confidentiality.
IF this “source” claims innocence, at least disclose from whom he got the counterfeit documents — and so on until they find the guilty party?
While I do consider this to be non-sequitur, I’ll answer anyway: yes, anyone who broke the law by revealing the name of a covert operative should be prosecuted.
Nonetheless, there is a difference between asking a journalist to reveal the name of a source of true information (however criminal it might be) than to ask a journalist to reveal the name of a source of fraud and forgery.
I think the point is whether leaks of true information, made illegally to the media, are similar to deliberately giving false information to the media. And from that, should these two situations be treated the same or differently? Not which one is “worse.”
Not at all. I think that if either culprit is found he or she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
However, the difference in my opinion is whether the JOURNALISTS should be compelled to divulge the identity of the culprit. It’s been long established that confidentiality of sources is important to freedom of the press, and the press needs to be free to any source of TRUE information that makes itself available to them. Should that party end up in jail due to their own crimes, that’s too bad for the journalist, but for the sake of our press’s ability to expose wrongdoing by the government, it is important that we not allow the government the power to force a member of the press to supply the names of his or her information sources.
But that reasoning only applies to sources of TRUE INFORMATION. Those who supply the press with forgeries and lies are not helping freedom of the press, they are reducing its effectiveness. So the journalist who was given the forgery should not be protecting the forger.
I sense a number of very small holes on the good ship CBS from its recent brush with the iceberg…all below the water line. I hope they start bailing soon or at least get all the lifeboats off safely…
I’m sure Dan the man will be in one of them though. Women and children and super stars first.
I tend to agree with Mr. Moto on this. If Burkett was their highly credible source, then they have a strange definition of credible. They guy sounds kind of like Reeder. :eek:
Nothing has really changed. CBS didn’t discover any new info. They just fucked up the first time, and the question is why? I’ve seen this compared to other recent screw-ups, like the guy filing phony reports at the NYT, but that was an inside job.
I’m very confused. It would take “liberal bias” of an unimaginable degree if that were the case. It just doesn’t make sense.
Right now I’m deciding it, based on my own criteria (which I will smugly refer to as “the bounds of reason”). It doesn’t take a genius to see that knowing Valerie Plame was a CIA agent doesn’t benefit the public in any way: the idea that it helps us evaluate Wilson’s statements about Iraq is, IMO, such an obvious and absurd pretext that it merits no consideration.
While I suppose I could word my criteria more objectively after a lot of thought, I’m growing tired of this and I’ll stick with the bounds of reason for now.
Wrong source. I was talking about the traitor who outed Valerie Plame (which was clear from the context).
However, back to the CBS documents: The revelation that Burkett gave the documents to CBS himself and lied about their origins means that accuracy and future implications are against him, and his intent is questionable for that and other reasons.
