An isolationist, apparently, is someone who wants to work through the U.N. If that's the case, I'll proudly accept the label.

Posted at February 1, 2006 11:17 AM in response to Defining Isolationism Down

Ah, Matthew, what makes you think that "we're trying to get Iran to c
o-operate with us in Iraq"? We're doing no such thing. We're trying to create permanent bases in Iraq, from which we can invade Iran and overthrow its government before it develops nukes. That's been the plan since Day 1. Who cares about Arab public opinion? I mean, who in the US government cares about Arab public opinion? Arab public opinion isn't going to protect us, or Tel Aviv, from Iranian nukes.

Posted at December 14, 2005 4:03 PM in response to Method to the Madness

You must not be from around here. The fiscal mess New Jersey finds itself in right now is almost entirely of its own making. It began with Governor Whitman's irresponsible tax cuts, financed by a raid on the state pension funds, and continued under the Democrats, who haven't had the guts (so far) to address the problem. Corzine may have the guts; wheher he's got the political chops to get the Democrats in the legislature to follow him is another story.

Posted at November 18, 2005 8:35 AM in response to The State We're In

"Really?  Because since Judith Miller was willing to go to jail to protect Libby, and wound up having to testify in front of the grand jury anyway, now everyone knows that every reporter is entirely trustworthy, and if that chain of events hadn't happened, we would never get a leak again?"

Judy Miller spent almost three months in jail, and she only testified after her source specifically and directly told her she could. Frankly, she did more to protect the principle than Matt Cooper did--and a helluva lot more than Bob Novak did. If you were a potential government whistleblower, which one would you trust first to protect you from retribution?

Posted at October 30, 2005 12:23 PM in response to What Number?

"If Libby uses reporters to smear Ellsberg,  then you're saying reporters must defend Libby because only that way will they be able to protect the next Ellsberg?  What about the current Ellsberg?  Are you saying that the only way reporters are able to win the trust of their sources is by behaving completely stupidly and inflexibly?"

A reporter isn't responsible for what one source says about another source. (And, in the present case, Wilson wasn't a source.) No source is guaranteed that someone else won't smear him, anonymously or not. The only guarantee an anonymous source gets is that he will remain anonymous.

Your beef isn't with the anonymous source rules. It's with the routine practice of granting anonymity to people who are taking advantage of the rules to spread disinformation. I agree with you on that, and I think  reporters should be much tougher on this. But once they grant anonymity, there's a very serious principle involved, and if you ever want to hear from a whistleblower again, you owe a little debt of gratitude to an otherwise lousy reporter at the NYT.

Posted at October 30, 2005 10:42 AM in response to What Number?

"<span class="Apple-style-span">Is there a formal written code of ethics for professional journalists to deal with these kinds of issues?"</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">
</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">There are probably a couple, but journalism isn't a closed or regulated profession, so they aren't binding. Any such code would include protecting the confidentiality of anonymous sources. The tough question in this case was, when is that confidentiality waived? The behavior of various journalists indicates that there is less than unanimity on this point. Certainly a coerced waiver shouldn't be accepted. How about a wink-wink waiver conveyed by an attorney? Personally, I wouldn't settle for less than a one-on-one conversation with the source. </span&gt

Posted at October 30, 2005 9:08 AM in response to What Number?

"Again, taking it to the extreme, a reporter has promised confidentiality to her source, and her source confesses to her that he's murdered somebody. Does confidentiality bind the reporter?"

Short answer: Yes.

"Suppose Libby lied to the grand jury, telling them that Judith Miller had mentioned her plan to murder somebody. Would confidentiality still compel Judith Miller to remain silent?"

No, because she wouldn't be testifying about what Libby said to her. She'd be testifying about what she said (or did not say) to Libby.

You can play the game of trying to concoct extreme scenarios, and at some point you'll probably hit a case where any journalist would start to hedge. But the basic principle is: You do not reveal anonymous sources. And the most important reason you do not reveal anonymous sources is because you want to assure next week's anonymous source that he can trust you. Because next week's anonymous source might be Ellsberg, not Libby.

Posted at October 30, 2005 8:59 AM in response to What Number?

Jay: The vast majority of all reporting is done on the record. And, as I suspect you'll agree, a lot of what's done off the record really doesn't need to be. But off-the-record is going to be SOP for White House officials outside the press office, and that's been true for a long time. (It's one reason why reporters should pay less attention to what White House officials say.)
I don't know the details of Russert's case, but he clearly wasn't interviewing Libby in that conversation, offered no pledge of confidentiality to Libby, and was under no obligation to protect anything *from that conversation.*
That said, when Russert gets a subpoena he really doesn't know exactly what Fitzgerald is looking for and what he might be asked. Maybe Russert has interviewed Libby on background on other occasions. These are very tough situations for a reporter, there are no clear rules, and we need to cut them some slack as they struggle to deal with each case. (Note: That does not mean we need to cut anybody slack for inexcusably bad reporting.)

Posted at October 29, 2005 2:52 PM in response to What Number?

washerdreyer: A better way to understand this is to ask, "What promise has the reporter made to the source?" The reporter has promised the source that she will not reveal the fact that he told her X. She can report X, attributed to an anonymous source (let's hope more than one). She could, depending on the circumstances, even reveal that she has talked to the source. But what she cannot do is break that promise, because that would expose the source to whatever harm the source feared in insisting on anonymity. (The fact that many of us would wish all that harm and more on Mr. Libby does not change the way a reporter would have to look at the question.)
To your last sentence, remember that Miller did not know for a fact that Libby told Fitzgerald anything about their conversation, let alone that he had discused Wilson's wife with her. 
Imagine it's not Libby. Imagine it's Daniel Ellsberg, and a prosecutor is trying to find out who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Even if Ellsberg admitted to the prosecutor that he spoke to the reporter, and even if the reporter knew this, she still shouldn't tell the prosecutor that Ellsberg gave her the papers, should she? (Note: The imperfections of the Libby-Ellsberg analogy are conceded.)

Posted at October 29, 2005 2:32 PM in response to What Number?

A reporter is not just protecting a source. She is protecting the fact that "this source told me X." Unless she knows exactly what the source told the prosecutor, she would have no idea what she could or could not say without violating her confidentiality agreement with the source. And there's no good way around that problem, because the prosecutor can't tell her what the source said (both because he would be revealing grand jury testimony and because he wants to get the reporter's independent recollection of the conversation).
In this particular case, Judith Miller promised Scooter Libby that she would not tell anyone that he told her about Wilson's wife. Unless she knows that Libby told Fitzgerald that he told Miller about Wilson's wife, she's in a pickle when she gets that subpoena. And don't forget that Libby did *not* admit this to Fitzgerald. He never revealed the essential secret being protected here. Like it or not (and like her or not), she was eventually forced to reveal something she had promised not to reveal.

Posted at October 29, 2005 12:02 PM in response to What Number?