-
NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, and ABC's bureau chief, Robin Sproul, said yesterday they could not discuss any matter involving confidential sources. But John Roberts, a CBS White House correspondent, said that to his knowledge, no administration official had contacted anyone at the network about Wilson.
If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative."
If that was a valid thing to do then it's a valid thing to do now. While journalists are supposed to protect their sources, John Roberts apparently thinks that particular ethical dictate wouldn't apply here. That is, as I said previously, if someone tries to do a smear like that the story isn't "Wilson's wife is CIA." The story is "White House operatives breach national security." Roberts agrees, but claims he doesn't have the information. There are at least 5 other journalists, aside from Novak but including Andrea Mitchell, who apparently do have that information and I see no reason why any ethical or professional considerations would prevent them from running with the story.
This letter writer to Medianews agrees.
-
Is the idea of protecting one's sources so mindlessly adhered to that we cannot distinguish between the beneficial and the malevolent? Is it not time for a reassessment of the anonymous source when the media is being used as a tool of intimidation? A crime has been committed here, that is clear. There are at least six people who know who did it. It is, I thought, the job of the media to inform the public, not to protect lawbreakers in our government.