Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal geoswan's Journal: Why Miller, not Novak? 17

Journal by geoswan
Jim Lehrer asked Terence Smith why NYTimes journalist Judith Miller may go to prison, while Novak is in the clear.

Novak was the one who outed Palme, the wife of Ambassador Wilson, as a CIA agent. Miller never published this information. But investigators believed that it had been leaked to her as well.

Miller, and another journalist who works for Time magazine, may end up serving 18 months, because they won't reveal their sources. Serious journalists protect their sources.

Smith said that an answer to this question seems clearer. Novak isn't facing jail time because he has already testified, and he did not protect his sources.

Further, Smith said, if Novak's source did not know that Palme had worked undercover in the the last five years, it can be argued that he or she had not committed a crime.

Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby were near the top of of those suspected of being Novak's source.

Investigators want Miller and her colleague to testify to establish a pattern of what kinds of information Bush's officials leak.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Miller, not Novak? More

Why Miller, not Novak?

Comments Filter:
  • Plame was outed by neither Miller nor Novak. She was outed by Alger Hiss all those years ago.

    The whole thing is an absurd witch-hunt over a non-event over something that everybody who actually cared already knew anyways.

    It was all engineered with one purpose in mind: to hurt Bush.

    But it's nothing. It never was anything. Nobody should be going to jail, and they should stop wasting our tax dollars "investigating" it.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • The whole thing is an absurd witch-hunt over a non-event over something that everybody who actually cared already knew anyways.

      It was all engineered with one purpose in mind: to hurt Bush.

      But it's nothing. It never was anything. Nobody should be going to jail, and they should stop wasting our tax dollars "investigating" it.

      Plame back in the USA, so the outing did not put her life in immediate risk. But, you know, there is another reason why you shouldn't "out" your spies. It puts their contacts

      • Oops, I mean Aldrich Ames, not Alger Hiss.
        Duh.

        Anyways, Plame is a well known CIA agent and has been for a very long time. Any foreign spy agency that didn't already know that probably isn't even trying to spy against the USA and thus isn't a threat in the first place.

        And I would hope to God the CIA would not use an agent already known to be compromised as a contact for other agents still in the field. If they're that incompetent there's no hope for us in the war on terror, or for much else for that mat

        • The New York Times, by the way, is also screaming loudly for Bush's head over the whole Plame affair. Never mind it was one of their own (Nicholas Kristof) who did the real outing a decade ago that REALLY almost cost Plame her life. Never mind that! They have an agenda to push! Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

          I took your hint, and did a google on "Nicholas Kristof" and "Valerie Plame". I found that Kristof had written about her outing [cryptome.org], but after Novak wrote about her, not before. He wrote: "I know M

  • ... that the reporter that has good sources and integrity is going to jail, whereas the one who is unreliable and/or a weasel is let off free.

    Nice.
  • Anywhere in the world, journalists cannot reveal their source of information. They have to bring it to the graves. But because of that, sometimes their credibility of news goes to questions. I think to keep secret the source of news is an absolute rule for journalism.
    • Thats too bad. I think journalism should be about openness and honesty first before obfuscation and secrecy. To each their own I guess.
      • Welcome back. FWIW I am not interested in an "echo chamber". [slashdot.org]

        So, what do you think about Robert Novak on your openness and honesty scale?

        Novak pushes books on his show which are published by the company his son works for. Do you think he should be open about this when he promotes them to his viewers?

        Journalists keep their sources confidential to protect them from recriminations, and protect their safety. Responsible journalists don't publish information from confidential sources unless they can fin

        • I don't have an opinion on Robert Novak as he has nothing to do with me. As for an opinion of anyone being a salesman of books published by a company one's relative works for, I don't have an opinion of that either. There isn't enough information there to form a worthwhile opinion. Is the relative the CEO? Does the relative work in the mailroom? Does the relative own a substatial amount of stock? If the salesman wrote the book themselves and went on TV to plug it, how is that inherently different than
          • The relative is his son and an editor at the company.

            The difference should be obvious, but I'll explain anyway. When you are recommending a book published by the company for which your son is an editor, there is the appearance that the reviewer is not being subjective. In most families, we tend to cut our family members slack that we wouldn't for the general public. Telling the public about the connection will show that the reviewer is so confident in his recommendation that the possibility of nepotism is
            • Did the son edit the book? The question is if the son personally stands to gain from increased sales of that particular book. Without that first bit, the rest is just petty personal attacks. Like I said, I don't know and I couldn't give a shit about Novak. I'm just outlining a general case here. One that has little to do with disclosure in actual investigative journalism, I might add.

              Telling the public about the connection will show that the reviewer is so confident in his recommendation that the po
              • But a person's name being on the line as a reviewer serves the same purpose.

                This is kinda the point. Suppose Novak always gives fantastic reviews, but totally blew it on this one? Wouldn't you wonder why?

                This is getting off topic from the post to which I replyed.

                Whatever. Until the JE owner tells me I'm off topic, I'll run with a conversation, wherever it leads. Not all discussion is as linear as the slash editors (and usenet and mailing and blah, blah, blah) would like it to be.
                • This is kinda the point. Suppose Novak always gives fantastic reviews, but totally blew it on this one? Wouldn't you wonder why?

                  No, it would become clear upon the slightest investigation. Then that person's name would be ruined. More reason to be open, but in the societially non-critical area of book review, I still don't care. The user is out, what...$8 on the soft copy? Perspective here people. This still seems like a lame personal attack.

                  Whatever. Until the JE owner tells me I'm off topic, I'
              • In the interests of completeness...

                This article [washingtonmonthly.com] says Alex Novak is the director of Marketing. And it goes on to say:

                But he has another connection to the publishing house that also goes unmentioned. Tom Phillips, the owner of Regnery, also owns Eagle Publishing, which distributes the "Evans-Novak Political Report," available to subscribers for an annual $297 rate.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Close