Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TWO QUERIES....Question for the masses. Jason Zengerle of The New Republic is getting skinned alive in the liberal blogosphere for refusing to burn the source who gave him a fabricated email allegedly from Steve Gilliard. Now, in principle, I agree that sources who provide bad info deserve to be outed, but in practice it never seems to happen. Thus my question: has this ever happened before? Can anyone think of a case in big-time journalism in which a dirty source has been exposed?

Second question: In the LA Times today, editor Dean Baquet defended his newspaper's decision to expose the government's secret program to track global financial transactions. He says, "The decision to publish this article was not one we took lightly," and follows up by explaining that sometimes they decide not to publish important stories: "We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life."

Again, can anyone think of a serious case in the past few decades of a newspaper withholding an entire story like this simply because the government asked them to? Not just a single fact in a story, but an entire story about a secret program of some kind.

Just curious.

UPDATE: On Query #1, the answers so far that fit the criteria are (a) the NYT sitting on the NSA story for a year and (b) the NYT sitting on a story about our ability to listen in on Russian trunk lines in the early 80s. In both cases, however, the Times published the stories a year later.

On Query #2, the only example so far is this column by Jon Alter, where he says he burned Oliver North in 1987 after hearing him testify before Congress about something he himself had leaked.

Kevin Drum 12:17 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

how would we know?

Posted by: cleek on June 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin --
The NYT sat on a Bay of Pigs story, and on a story about the missiles in Cuba, the latter at the firect intervention of JFK with (I believe) Turner Catledge. And, of course, the NYT sat on the most recent NSA wiretapping story for nearly a year.
That what you meant?

Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog on June 27, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

The thing about sources I think, is that in the past, when papers got anonymous sources they had the resources to really go after the facts and do their best to verify the tip. But now, does anyone in the Administration besides Tony Snow ever speak about the Bush Administration without asking to remain anonymous?

In addition budget cuts and integrity cuts have resulted in lax standards that allow things like this to happen more often. Plus because of the internet it's far easier for regular people to fact check things like that and have a puplit to announce it.

The papers wouldn't NEED to burn sources because:
1) they were better about checking sources out so fewer bad ones go through
2) they cared enough to do the checking
3) it was harder for non-journalists to figure out the facts for themselves
4) even if they did, the non-journalists had no puplit like Kos or Glenn Greenwald do to rally activists and partisans

Posted by: MNPundit on June 27, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't the New York Times sit on the NSA wiretapping story for a year before publishing it?

Posted by: Lurker on June 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek: These things usually get exposed after the fact. If a newspaper decides not to run a story, someone will usually tell the tale a few years later.

But you're right that this is a tougher question than the first one. Still, can anyone think of a case?

Posted by: Kevin Drum on June 27, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Jim: Yes, but something more recent. Journalists routinely buried stories in the 50s, but that practice seems to have ended in the 60s and 70s. However, I'd be interested in any case from 1970 or later.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on June 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

If they didn't publish a story, and no one talked about it, how would you ever know?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on June 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin - I can't tell if you're being facetious or deliberately obtuse, in light of the recent assistance the NYT rendered to Bush's "reelection" by sitting on the NSA story.

Posted by: Mimir on June 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

editor Dean Baquet defended his newspaper's decision to expose the government's secret program to track global financial transactions.

It's a disgrace to disclose the anti-terrorist program to track the financial transaction of terrorist. This just makes it all the more difficult to win the War on the Terrorists. But the liberal controlled media doesn't care about winning the war. They have committed a act of treason to publish the classified information that has saved countless American lives from the terrorists. The "journalists" and editors who published this classified information should be punished by imprisonment at Gitmo so they can spend more time with the terrorists who they care about so much.

Posted by: Al on June 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

does judith miller's "everyone knew something big was coming down" qualify?

Posted by: paperpusher on June 27, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Q2 seems to have been answered.

Re burning sources, it also seems clear that the MSM have been WAY too willing to offer anonymity, often seemingly simply on the basis of it having been requested, and that has been turned against them very consciously and manipulatively.

They're getting better about it, imo. The NYTimes, for example, usually includes an explanation of WHY anonymous sources are anonymous when they cite them, and often those reasons seem plausible, to me at least.

But I don't think the threat of burning a source after the fact is a very good incentive in this case, because what it really means is, "if I, the reporter, decide you've burned me, then I'll burn you, and it's completely up to me," i.e., "my promise of confidentiality is conditional and therefore worthless."

I think, for this reason, it's unlikely you'll see much burning of sources. What I think you will see more of are much tigher constraints on confidentiality.

Posted by: bleh on June 27, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Having dabbled in programming and artificial intelligence for a few years of my life, I must say that if Al is a computer program, the person who wrote it is a genius. Evil and idiotic genius to be sure, but genius nevertheless.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah I also can't tell if you're being snarky. The NSA wiretap story was famously sat on because of the 2004 election. In fact the 2004 election caused a lot of stories to be sat on, including Bush's brother Neil's trial for having sex with hookers in Thailand in 2003, in which he revealed in court testimony that he had gotten the clap from the hooker.

Posted by: reef the dog on June 27, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

The answer to the second quesion is obvious: how come the passports of the terrorists who hit the WTC were found intact on the ground, if the news pieces that claim this to be the case are true. I am sure some papers know about this mystery, but are not telling us.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Again, can anyone think of a serious case in the past few decades of a newspaper withholding an entire story like this simply because the government asked them to? Not just a single fact in a story, but an entire story about a secret program of some kind.

Uh, yeah. The story about the Bush regime using the NSA to spy on Americans and their political opponents was withheld by the Times for a year. The ostensible reason given was due to national security, but of course the real reason was that they didn't want this to come out before the 2004 election.

Of course, in the larger sense we don't know about the stories that are or were withheld because the stories were withheld.... It's kind of like asking "can you think of any secrets you don't know?" Well, no.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

I think the MSM sat on the Gary Hart fooling-around story, didn't they? It was a life-threatening thing. They didn't want to threaten his [sex] life. It was only after some bastard low-life reporters in Florida broke it that the floodgates opened and the rest of the press got their rocks off.

Sex lives have been open-book ever since. Of Democrats, of course.

Posted by: Libby Sosume on June 27, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

And of course there's what whole shocking story about...wait, I better not. I promised to keep my mouth shut. It's earthshattering, though. Too bad I can't tell.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

why don't wingnuts ever understand that the word "treason" carries a precise definition? a definition that doesn't include "saying anything I or my dark overlords command me to disagree w/."

and as greg sargent has pointed out, the "compromising national security" accusation is never supported w/ facts.

but back to Kevin's question, the NSA staory sounds like the good bet.

Posted by: mencken on June 27, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

FYI (comments-spam alert) -- If anyone feels like telling the LAT or Baquet what they think, or arguing with others who do, we're soliciting feedback here.

Posted by: Matt Welch on June 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Another obvious recent story that was held for awhile: Abu Ghraib.

Anything related to troop movements. Remember how American troops seemed to be bogged down in Iraq during the invasion, and suddenly they were in Baghdad?

Posted by: Boronx on June 27, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

I read that statement as pertaining more to local crime. I can totally see telling the LAPD or County Sherriff's asking the newspaper not to publish certain facts that might jeopardize an investigation or increase the risk of copycat crimes.

Or maybe I've just watched too much Homicide.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot on June 27, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Mimir, Stefan, others:

um, you realize that the NSA story would have helped Bush's relection?

if this is the level of political acumen among the liberal rank and file......

as for Neil Bush, his escapades were reported concurrent with their revelation at trial. I can't help it if you don't read the papers.

Posted by: Nathan on June 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it pretty obvious it's the Drudge Retort guy that shopped the story around?

Posted by: john on June 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

The Times sat on a story about our capabilities to listen in to Russian trunk lines. This would have been in the early 80s, and was discussed in Woodward's book on the CIA. I think they published it a year or so later, over Casey's objections.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on June 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

I think the release of the bank story is a collusion by the Bushistas and the NYTimes and the Tribune Corp. to construct the basis for the argument that NYTimes is really not the Pravda and LATimes is not Izvestia, but actually it's the other way round.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

why don't wingnuts ever understand that the word "treason" carries a precise definition?

How about when "Benedict Ronald" Reagan sold missiles to Iran? Does that qualify as treason?

Posted by: Riesz Fischer on June 27, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

No source has ever been outed except under court order, methinks.

Posted by: Libby Sosume on June 27, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

btw, the monitoring of the SWIFT database by the U.S. was publicly disclosed in December 2002 in a report to the UN Security Council by The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/725/72/PDF/N0272572.pdf?OpenElement

Posted by: Nathan on June 27, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

um, you realize that the NSA story would have helped Bush's relection?

Really? That would assume that Americans approved of being spyed on, when in fact the opposite seems to be true:

January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval....

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.

if this is the level of political acumen among the liberal rank and file......

Poor Nathan! Forced to spend his massive brainpower and mad politcal skillz educating the heathen! Let us all pity him and his vastly superior acumen....

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

um, you realize that the NSA story would have helped Bush's relection?

But, of course, the key point isn't whether Americans approved or disapproved of being spyed on without a warrant after the fact -- the key point, when discussing the Bush regime's efforts to bury the story, is what the Bush lackeys feared beforehand might happen if the program was revealed. Even if the reveal of the program caused only 1%-2% of voters to switch their votes against Bush, that could have been enough in a very close election, and therefore Bush would have had every incentive to hide this.

If they knew for a fact that it would have helped them, the GOP would have trumpeted this story to the skies, national security be damned (they are always willing to put party over country). However, they couldn't be sure, and that's why they tried to keep it hidden and exploded in panic when it came out.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

"um, you realize that the NSA story would have helped Bush's relection?"

um, you realize that showing a candidate point blank and repeatedly lied to the American people usually doesnt help in reelection especially when the race is close to begin with. Americans increasingly dont trust George W. Bush and this story was one of many reasons not to trust him.

I would also add to Stefan's comment that Americans dont particularly like being spied on, but that they dont like being lied to either.

Bush repeatedly lied during the re-election campaign about always seeking warrants prior to getting wiretaps due to his alleged valuing the Constitution.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 27, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

There's another one. The fact that, at least for most of his second term, Reagan was a symptomatic Alzheimer's patient. Lesley Stahl mentions in her memoirs that she didn't pursue it, and McManus/Mayer in Landslide have a young lawyer actually putting together a 26th amendment brief on presidential incapacity. My information is that a lot of DC reporters had this and didn't pursue it.

Posted by: Jim Madison's Dog on June 27, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

See Cohen v. Cowles Media, 501 U.S. 663 (1991). By a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court held that a newspaper could be held liable for breach of promise, for a promise of confidentiality made to a source whom they later decided to expose. The source in this case wasn't bad, the information he provided was not false, but the paper unilaterally decided that the source's identity was more newsworthy than the actual information he was providing.

The newspaper ended up paying a substantial sum to the source they exposed.

Question: is truthfulness and accuracy a material condition of the media outlet's promise of confidentiality to the source?

Answer -- in virtually all cases, the answer is probably no. The source isn't going to provide info unless his or her identity is promised to be withheld under all circumstances.

So TNR is trapped between a rock and a hard place -- between the howling anger of the left blogosphere and the prospect of paying substantial money damages for violating its promise of confidentiality.

Posted by: Greg Abbott on June 27, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

btw, the monitoring of the SWIFT database by the U.S. was publicly disclosed in December 2002 in a report to the UN Security Council by The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group

Therefore, of course, the Times exposed nothing. The program was public knowledge. Republican attempts to whip up their usual froth of hysteria over this are so much hand-flapping.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

The details of Kissinger's overture to the North Vietnamese prior to the 1968 election and GHWB's supposed talks with the Iranians before the 1980 elections have never been fully explored by the main stream media. And then there is the question of GHWB's affair, the reporting on which was terminated quickly after a tantrum thrown on the air by the elder Bush.

Somehow the media's silence on all these issues, if true, benefitted the Republicans.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

WARNING! MOONBAT ALERT!

What about the truth about how WTC 7 fell on 9/11? That is the tower which wasn't hit by an airplane. It was separated from the twin towers by WTC 6, which, though battered, did not collapse on 9/11.

/MOONBAT ALERT

Posted by: PetervE on June 27, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone remember Clinton testimony before Ken Starr? We were told that the PResident was angry and didn't do well and all sorts of leaks about Clinton's bad temper came from the White House.

Well, the leaks were wrong. They were placed in the media PURELY to make CLinton look better when the video was finally made public.

No one complained that the Clinton administration was not telling the truth.

Why not????

Why trust a leaker who told you a lie on purpose????

Posted by: Neil Hecht on June 27, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just wondering if the press will declare war on Bush now that Bush has certainly declare war on the press?

Maybe our lazy pressmembers will simple wait until The executive editor of The Times, Bill Keller goes to jail, following in the foot steps of access loving little Miss Run Amok, Judy Miller.

And then Glenn Reynold and all the Ann Coulter loving Grand Old Party types will all cheer in one voice and say Keller deserves nothing short of the death penalty, while liberals, who don't like or respect Keller anyways, simple won't care.

Perhaps after that maybe well get a newspaper that remembers that reporting is more than merely access and administration lip service - it's about finding the all facts in the issue,than reporting the hard hitting truth, despite the Coulter influence, and not simply giving this administration a pass. The fact that Bush has gotten this far with the press shows us that the press, who said they were doing their jobs but were not - have knowbody except themselves to blame. It's really easy to go the way of Dan Rather, just ask Judy. Bush foe or friend, the press is screwed.

Posted by: Cheryl on June 27, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Even if the reveal of the program caused only 1%-2% of voters to switch their votes against Bush, that could have been enough in a very close election.

Posted by: Christian carter on June 27, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Burned Oliver North?" No, the U.S. government burned us in that case. That piece of filth should still be in federal prison. His actions were treasonous.

Posted by: JeffII on June 27, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't the New York Times sit on the NSA wiretapping story for a year before publishing it?
Posted by: Lurker

That and what they knew about Judy Miller's involvement with outing Valerie Plame. They withheld information about these things until after the 2004 presidential elections. I wonder how much those netted the Sulzbergers? I would guess that the "intrepid" reporters that got the Pulitzer for the wire-tapping story got their cuts as well. Why else would they have co-operated?

Posted by: JeffII on June 27, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

As for Query #1 (media withholding a story), I think this is quite common.

At the request of the Kennedy Administration, WaPo and/or the New York Times sat on the Cuban Missile Crisis story for several days. By agreement, they reported the story on the day that Kennedy addressed to the nation.

People more knowledgeable than me can back that up I hope (and hopefully provide a link), but I am certain I read about it somewhere.

I expect certain members of the media also remained silent regarding major wartime offensives, including D-Day and/or Hiroshima.

In light of this, it wouldn't surprise me if Baquet is speaking the truth.

Posted by: K Ashford on June 27, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm just wondering if the press will declare war on Bush now that Bush has certainly declare war on the press?"

Don't hold your breath. Hardball (among others) did segments in which journalists seriously debated whether the NYT should be charged with treason. Journalists were debating this.

Wherever Ed Murrow is now, he's seriously puking up right now.

Posted by: K Ashford on June 27, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I expect certain members of the media also remained silent regarding major wartime offensives, including D-Day and/or Hiroshima. Posted by: K Ashford

You're joking, right, trying to find equivalency between D-Day and lying about illegal wire-tapping? Revealing the details of D-Day would have gotten you shot, regardless of whether you were a civilian or in the military. Yes, the German's expected an invasion, but they did not know when and where it would take place.

Don't you remember idiot Gerald Rivers (aka Geraldo Rivera) getting un-embedded in Kurdistan just for drawing troop positions in the sand?

Posted by: JeffII on June 27, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I have a serious question about this little dust-up: Is there any reason to believe that Zengerle actually has a source for that quote, rather than simply having made it up? The guy certainly seems like a hack and/or hatchet man. Is there reason to believe anything he says, as in a track record of actual journalism?

Posted by: S Ra on June 27, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the anonymous source of CBS's Killian memos was forced to become public.

Might be a little different, but I'm guessing they used some underhanded methods to make Burkett come out. And then of course they fired everyone else involved in making the documents public.

Posted by: B on June 27, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
Again, can anyone think of a serious case in the past few decades of a newspaper withholding an entire story like this simply because the government asked them to? Not just a single fact in a story, but an entire story about a secret program of some kind.

Uh, yeah. The New York Times withheld information on the domestic surveillance programs being conducted by this administration for quite some time based on national security concerns voiced by the Administration.

Eventually it was published, but you can't seriously be asking people to come up with examples of stories that never became public. Because, well, that would be a pretty dumb question.

Just curious.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 27, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

'However, I'd be interested in any case from 1970 or later.'
--Kevin Drum

Kevin, the Bush family in particular, has benefited for decades from a compliant media, that refuses to delve into their very checkered past.

One could say that the Bush family has waged a long, successful war on history, covering up numerous crimes and sins committed over the years, including George H.W. Bushs decade-long extramarital affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, which the mainstream media knew about and rarely, if ever, mentioned. Contrast that fact with the way the media handled Bill Clintons extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky!

Even going back to Bushs grandpa, Prescott Bush, who was one of Adolf Hitlers financiers, the Bush family has gotten a pass on media coverage of their criminal and often treasonous activity. Even though Poppy Bush sold all those arms and ingredients for WMDs to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s , the mainstream media didnt even bother to mention this fact to the American people, when Sonny used that as the justification for going to war again against the monster the Bush family helped create and keep in power. No, Kevin, recent history is replete with examples of the MSM giving the Bush family a pass. You just have to look for it...

Posted by: Stephen on June 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

How has the first question asked become Query 2?

Posted by: crack on June 27, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:
you're too smart to be trying to use a problematically-worded poll from 2006 as evidence of political effect in 2004 (when the Democrats were trying to do everything possible to avoid national security as a political issue)...

Posted by: Nathan on June 27, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

similar to Oliver North, didn't Judy Miller leave jail (and burn Libby) after she heard him gloating on TV that he had provided releases of confidentiality to anyone asking?

Posted by: cedichou on June 27, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

"Jason Zengerle of The New Republic is getting skinned alive in the liberal blogosphere for refusing to burn the source who gave him a fabricated email allegedly from Steve Gilliard."

Zengerle is being skinned alive for not fact checking, not apologizing, and being a dick. He is being skinned alive with his refusal to burn the source.

Posted by: jerry on June 27, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

I'm loath to admit this, but Bob Novak burned Robert Hanssen, FBI agent/Soviet spy:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2001/07/12/166016.html

Posted by: jfxgillis on June 27, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, you're too smart to be trying to use a problematically-worded poll from 2006 as evidence of political effect in 2004 (when the Democrats were trying to do everything possible to avoid national security as a political issue)...

Well, as a lawyer you're also canny enough to know that you're ignoring my larger point, which, as I wrote above, was:

But, of course, the key point isn't whether Americans approved or disapproved of being spyed on without a warrant after the fact -- the key point, when discussing the Bush regime's efforts to bury the story, is what the Bush lackeys feared beforehand might happen if the program was revealed. Even if the reveal of the program caused only 1%-2% of voters to switch their votes against Bush, that could have been enough in a very close election, and therefore Bush would have had every incentive to hide this.

If they knew for a fact that it would have helped them, the GOP would have trumpeted this story to the skies, national security be damned (they are always willing to put party over country). However, they couldn't be sure, and that's why they tried to keep it hidden and exploded in panic when it came out.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

The controversy over Zengerle's source seems a tad bit hysterical, given that Steve Gilliard has acknowledged expressing sentiments very similar to those in the disputed email. He just didn't send that email to the Townhouse list.

I wonder if Gilliard himself wouldn't be in a good position to figure out who the source is.

Posted by: kc on June 27, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you have Query #1 and #2 reversed n your update.

You asked about the burned source first, but call that #2 in your update...

Posted by: Crissa on June 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if your informant gives you a package, and two out of three items, over 90% of the actual word for word content, is real...

That seems pretty small potatoes out of the source's info, to be burned on.

It just confuses me.

Posted by: Crissa on June 27, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Christopher Hitchens break confidentiality with someone (Sid Blumenthal?) during Monica madness?

Of course that was over a presidential blowjob. Clearly, one can't possibly adhere to journalistic ethics in such an important matter.
Especially when you've had a lot to drink. And when you're a psycho.

Posted by: pfd on June 27, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I can't remember who the reporter was, but Richard Clarke had given a background briefing when he was in government, and the reporter burned him when he was testifying to the 9-11 commission.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on June 27, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Am I nuts, or does the UPDATE reverse Query #1 and Query #2? Reader confused.

Posted by: DonBoy on June 27, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm old enough to remember the Iran-Contra hearings, and recall Orin Hatch describing a reporter that had info on the arms for hostages swap a year early. He was pursuaded to give up an almost guaranteed Pulizer Prize because he didn't want to get William Buckley killed.

Posted by: minion of rove on June 27, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

How about during the Iran hostage crisis, when some embassy workers escaped to another country's embassy (maybe Canada?); some news organizations knew about it but didn't publish it till it was safe.

Posted by: Connie on June 27, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

"jerry"-- zengerle absolutely did apologize. now what was that you said about fact-checking?

Posted by: lunamon on June 27, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Query #2 - Novakula outed Robert Hanssen as a source after Hanssen was convicted of espionage. http://www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/NovakAtCenterOfLeakInquiry.html

Posted by: Chuck on June 28, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly