(Certain) Reporter's Privilege

I want to see some closure in the Valerie Plame case as much as the next guy, but I certainly don't feel comfortable about a parent company handing over a reporter's notes and revealing his sources. I've written for a couple of magazines (not as a news journalist, per se), and I believe journalists ought to have a right to protect their sources, particularly when the reporter in question didn't even reveal the leak of Plame's name. I understand somewhat that, in Novakula's case, he abetted the commission of a federal crime by naming Plame. But Matt Cooper at Time and Judith Miller at the New York Times (who I have my own problems with) did no such thing.

By the way, Novakula himself is testy, testy, testy:

ED HENRY: In general, have you cooperated with investigators in this case?

BOB NOVAK: I can't answer any questions about this case at all.

HENRY: OK. Now, just in general about the principle at stake here -- William Safire, fellow conservative, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying that at the very least, he believes that you owe your readers, and in this case, your viewers, some explanation. He said, "Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources, who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators, managed to get the prosecutor off his back." I think that's the question. Why sit that there are two reporters out there who may go to jail, Bob, but it doesn't appear that you are going to go to jail?

NOVAK: Well, that's what I can't reveal until this case is finished. I hope it is finished soon. And when it does, I agree with Mr. Safire, I will reveal all in a column and on the air.

HENRY: Do you understand why in general there's frustration among fellow journalist[s] after 41 years of distinguished work, where you've always pushed and been a fierce advocate of the public's right to know, you're not letting the public know about such a critical case, and two people may go to jail.

NOVAK: Well, they are not going to jail because of me. Whether I answer your questions or not, it has nothing to do with that. That's very ridiculous to think that I am the cause of their going to jail. I don't think they should be going to jail.

HENRY: Yes. But I didn't say you were the cause. But there are some people...

NOVAK: Yes, you did.

HENRY: No, but some people feel if you would come forward with the information that you have, that maybe they would not go to jail.

NOVAK: But you don't know -- Ed, you don't know anything about the case. And those people who say that don't know anything about the case. And unfortunately, as somebody who likes to write, I'd like to say a lot about the case, but because of my attorney's advice I can't. But I will. And there might be some surprising things.

It can't be seen as shocking that somebody who's spent four decades challenging the subjects of his columns doesn't like to be challenged himself. Nor is it surprising that he makes no ethical connection whatsoever about the consequences of his actions. The hatchet man isn't going to just get a conscience overnight. I'm just surprised that he would deign to come on the air at all, considering he's carefully avoided the question for years:

The one ground rule for my interview with Novak for this article, conveyed to me by his assistant, Kathleen, was that I could not ask him any questions about the Plame case. It wasn't that Novak wouldn't answer such questions; that was so obvious as almost to go without saying. But if I raised the topic in any way, she told me, “the interview will be immediately terminated.” The morning of the scheduled interview, Kathleen called me to say that Mr. Novak wanted to “make sure” I understood that if the Plame case came up during our talk, the interview would be over. I assured her that I got the picture....

Colleagues like (Paul) Begala say that they don't question Novak about the Plame case out of personal loyalty. “Look, he's a friend of mine,” Begala said to me. “I know that he can't talk about it. I respect that fact, so I don't bring it up.” But there's another reason they don't ask. Novak won't let them. The topic hasn't come up on “The Capital Gang,” for instance, because, according to one source at CNN, “Bob is the executive producer and he has more say than anybody else…He won't talk about it.” Novak's role at the show means that he gets to determine what subjects do—and, more importantly, do not—get discussed. But couldn't one of the other panelists bring it up, even so? “You have to understand,” said the source, “this is Bob's show. He's the boss."

Even William Safire realizes that Novak is acting in bad faith:

Mr. Novak should finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues perhaps explaining how his two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back.

The insistent focus on Cooper and Miller, and not Novak, is really intriguing. How do the two reporters who declined to leak Plame's identity get threatened with jail time, and the one who slavishly did it, risking the lives of CIA agents and sources around the world, get off scot-free? And this is a real black eye for Time. What journalist worth his salt would want to write for them now after such a sell-out? This really damages the whole concept of confidentiality. I want to see people held accountable for the heinous, vindictive act of revealing a covert CIA agent. But this is over the top.