When I finally got around to asking her about the Valerie Plame story that is sweeping the blogs, she rolled her eyes, took and deep breath, and said something I have not heard anyone here (or anywhere else) say: "Why did the public need to know Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent? And why did Bob Novak's editors run the story with her name in it?" Much of the focus on this issue has been on players like Novak, Rove, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Judith Miller, and George W. Bush. Left out of all this are the people that gave the "ok" for Novak to print his story: the editors of the newspapers that printed it, in particular the editors at the Chicago Sun-Times, the newspaper that publishes Novak's columns.
As I stated, the center of the storm for editors and journalists is "does the public need to know this?" It's a very delicate and tough questions, often leaving oneself open to ridicule if items of a story (and even an entire story) are not printed because the editors felt the public did not need to know it. This is why the New York Times has the tag line: All the news that's fit to print. All journalists are taught this from day one.
So, when editors at the Chicago Sun-Times received Robert Novak's "Mission to Niger" column in July 2003, why didn't they ask themselves the basic question that they'd been taught since day one in journalism school: does the public need to know this? Is this an important piece that we are printing, or is it something else?
Now, columnists are supposedly held to a different standard than field journalists (though, when you read Judith Miller's laziness in the lead up to Iraq, it seems her editors didn't hold her to any meaningful standard at all). Most likely, Mr. Novak has a contract with his newspaper, requiring him to write X number of columns per year or month for a certain large sum of money. Novak wrote his column, as part of his arrangement, and in it named a CIA operative.
Why?
This should have been the first thought that entered into the minds of every editor that got Novak's column days before it was published. Why is he naming an agency operative? For those that can't remember, go back and read Novak's column . Anyone that's spent at least 4 credit hours in Basic Journalism 101 knows this column isn't "need to know."
The public doesn't need to now that Joe Wilson's wife is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.If that's the case, then why did Novak print her name?
Well, it's simple really. Novak is implying something. He's not really delivering any meanngful news or information. What Novak is implying in his article is the following:
In Basic Journalism 101 ladies and gentlemen, that kind of column is not within the realm of "need to know." That's slander , pure and simple.
Novak is trying to undercut Wilson's impeccable credibility by saying a friend of his in the CIA sent him on the mission, and not the CIA itself. Again, anyone with at least half a brain would ask: "This seems to suggest that the CIA isn't communicating within itself?"
And that's where the naming of Wilson's wife comes into play. It's spelled N-E-P-O-T-I-S-M folks. Wilson's wife sent him to Niger. Of course she would. She's his wife. Nobody else in the CIA would send Wilson, right? It's not like Wilson wasn't once the Ambassador of Gabon for President George H.W. Bush, or in charge of African affairs for the National Security Council. Joe Wilson was just some bum off the street, and his wife, who works for the CIA, sent him to Niger and he came back with nothing.
Again, anyone who knows anything about journalism sees that Novak is suggesting Wilson was unfit to do the job her did because his friggin' wife sent him. Somehow, in Novak's mind, this undercuts his findings regarding Iraq and Africa. It is simply not important to know Wilson's wife is Valerie Plame, agent on weapons of mass destruction. It's not important to know her name, her title, or her work unless its for the purpose of slander. She's CIA; a ranking Agent with the authority to send experts to gather information. For Wilson's part, his credibility is air tight. He's bi-partisan. Worked for the President's father. He has strong ties to Africa, with numerous contacts in various countries. The story wasn't Wilson's credibility. The story was a well-informed former ambassador was sent by the CIA in an official capacity to Niger in order to determine if Iraq had attempted to purchase materials to produce a nuclear weapon, a claim made by the President in his State of the Union address. The well-informed diplomat with the air-tight credibility came back and refuted everything the President said.
When editors for the papers like the Cicago Sun-Times got Novak's column in July 2003, they should have immediately recognized exactly what it was and done one of two things: ask Novak to change it so that Plame is not named, or not print it. Naming Plame is tabloid, and real editors should have known that. Sadly, it seems there are very few "real" editors out there. Would Ben Bradlee have printed Novak's column as is? Hell no!
And after it was determined that Novak not only named a CIA Agent, but an undercover CIA Agent, why didn't the real journalists slam Novak and call him out for the hack he is? Why didn't editors, real editors, use this as a classic case of tabloid trumping "need to know?" They could have distanced themselves from these pathetic sacks of shit by saying: We, at the Blankity Blank-Blank print "need to know," not tabloid crap aimed to slander like Mr. Novak.
I suppose many of you feel this is yet another example of the media failing to do its job. No, it isn't. It's journalism failing to do its job. Bob Novak is media. So is Bozo the Clown, Paris Hilton, and Fox News. They're all in the same barrel of shit. They are entertainment, not a body of credible professionals dedicated to publishing information the public needs to know. Media has an agenda that is motivated by money or politics (or both). Journalism failed here; basic, simple journalism.
If rag outfits that aren't worth a goddamn like Fox News, The Washington Times, and Town Hall want to print Bob Novak's slanderous "Mission to Niger" piece, aimed more at undermining Joe Wilson's credibility than reporting any meaningful news, then fine. Let them. To borrow from my girlfriend, "Of course they'll print that shit. It's fucking Fox." No one ever confused Fox News or Bob Novak with journalism. Novak himself has previously violated the principle of protecting sources by revealing Robert Hanssen as the confidential source for some of his articles back in 2001.
So, perhaps the real question here is this: why is any real newspaper publishing this guys shit at all? Why is any real editor actually bothering to waste his time reading Novak's drivel. Why wasn't Novak FIRED by the Chicago Sun-Times back in 2001, or after he named Plame's wife? Fuck inditing the bastard! At the very least, HE SHOULD BE UNEMPLOYED . The man has questionable ethics and writes sloppy slander that comes directly from the party he votes for: The Republican Party.
Again, this is not the failure of media. Media is a whore, and will anything for money, ratings, and ad revenue. Journalism failed here. Journalism is not media, or at least it shouldn't be. It seems that, in this age of big market cable news networks, Internet sites, and talk radio, journalism has failed to stand out and take a stand against such slander. They allow hacks like Novak to drag them down to their level by printing the crap they spew. In their rush to be "fair," they have forgotten the one thing they should always, always, always ask themselves:
Does the public need to know this?
Will the real editors stand up one day, point a finger at hacks like Novak, and say call them out? Not likely. Journalism seems to have lost its fights, its soul. Maybe people like us can help get it back; maybe.
Novak's editors at the Chicago Sun-Times, the newspaper that syndicates his columns, should have known better. Tell them so: letters@suntimes.com or click their link and send them a letter or email. Michael Cooke, I believe, was the editor at the time Novak printed his "Mission to Niger" column. John Barron is the new editor. Write Mr. Barron, and hold him to a higher standard than his predecessor seemed to hold himself, and his newspaper, to.