I have questions about Wilsongate

[southern democrat]

There were 6 different reporters who were given the name of Wilson's wife,the CIA operative.The prime suspect is Karl Rove and the White House has stated publicly that it was not Rove.

With the understanding that reporters do not reveal sources as a matter of ethics,why not ask the reporters if the statement by the WH is accurate?If the statement by WH is accurate this clears at least Rove and allows investigators to concentrate their efforts investigating someone else in the adminstration.

It would appear to me if the reporters kept silent after being asked this question,this would leave the appearence they are protecting Rove.If they are,why?Are the reasons ethical?Is it ethical to continue to protect the WH after they had lied(providing the leaker was Rove)?Is the ethical issue in protecting sources more important than national security?If reporters are protecting liars,does this not completely trash the credibilty of these reporters?Ahhh,so many questions and so few "truthfull" answers.

[LevChernyi]

1. sets a bad precedent..

You don't really want to go around outing other journalists sources.

[southern democrat]

4. Clearing Rove doesn't reveal the source.If it is Rove and

they stay slient after WH has denied Rove was the leaker.I can't see the standard of ethics that is being represented.

[LevChernyi]

8. it's a game of chicken

The WH knows that no one wants to out Novak's sources so they basically invite any of the journalists to come tell Ashcroft about it so they can fix it.

The journalists in turn lean on the WH to try and make them cough someone up without them having to start screwing over fellow journalists and setting a stage where no one would ever want to talk to them off record.

I don't really know who will win...

[newyawker99]

10. Hi LevChernyi!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[FlashHarry]

2. Ahh, the old "All the President's Men" ploy...

"If I said that the leaker's initials were K.R., would I be wrong?"

***reporter shakes head***

[caledesi]

16. FH - How I LOVE that movie.! They were so cool together.

[bpilgrim]

3. reporter has already named rove - Julian Borger Names Karl Rove

in private

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=140781

peace

[Catch22Dem]

6. Thanks for the link

And way to go Will Pitt!!!

[HereSince1628]

9. But Borger wasn't contacted directly...

and I am sure that in this case secondhand information will not satisfy anyone.

[Junkdrawer]

11. On the contrary, this secondhand report will be confirmed over...

and over again in the coming days. As one journalist put it, "I have an obligation to MY sources, but none for your sources." So Rove will enter a limbo where everyone knows he did it, but no one will prove he did it. Kind of a permanent liability - couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[librechik]

12. Yeah, everybody, this is second hand from Borger

who was told, he said, by a contactee that Rove was the one. I believe it, of course, but don't use as a source except among the choir.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Altman on CNBC just said this was how this story will break...

Rove is outed.

[caledesi]

17. Can't someone just anonymously call, fax etc. & point to KR and

then the JD zeroes in on him?

[politicaholic]

5. Rove has business dealings with many of the WH officials...

They all had a working relationship outside of the administration long before Bush was elected.

Also Karl Rove has been a GOP loyal since the Nixon administration. By selling him up the river the powerful in the GOP examine their own vulnerabilities and I don't think they wan to do that.

[librechik]

14. also, Karl knows where the bodies are buried

Do you think he would spill it all to save his own skin?

Maybe not. He's hardcore. My bet is he would take the fall with a smile, knowing the BushCo payoff would be huge after a short stay in federal prison. Or that he would be exterminated in prison if they don't believe in his loyalty.

It's a fascinating dilemma.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. To you and Flash Harry:

Although I think the other reporters are probably under the same "off the record" agreement as Novak, they are also in the position to know whether the Justice Dept. fingers the right perpetrator. If the other reporters know that the wrong person took the fall they can say "That's wrong. We know who it is and we can't tell you who it is, but that is NOT the source." How much leeway do they have between not divulging the source and identifying that the wrong person is taking the blame?

[msmcghee]

15. They don't reveal sources . .

. . so they will have sources in the future. Some may call it ethics - but it's mostly job security. The ethics part comes in when they promise the source not to reveal the sources name - it's a matter of giving their word not to disclose the source.

Did you know that "giving your word" comes from the Vikings. They understood that truthfulness was somewhat discretionary. i.e. if you were selling someone a horse, it was expected that you would lie your teeth off about that wonderful, healthy, hard-working horse.

But if you gave someone your word on something, that was serious. It meant that if you violated that oath, that the other person would then "own" your voice - that you would actually lose the ability to speak - unless they gave it back to you some day.

The Christians, who displaced the Vikings, used "telling the truth" instead of "giving your word". Unlike the more pragmatic approach of the heathen Vikings, "telling the truth" was an inflexible rule that was always expected of Christians according to their "bible".

Needless to say this has guranteed the world a never-ending supply of guilt-ridden Christian sinners - that persist to this day in great abundance and can be observed in our very own whitehouse.

Now, time to turn off the lights.