How many Time reporters knew they were deceiving readers about Rove's role in Plamegate?
SUMMARY: At least three reporters involved in an October 2003 Time magazine article that suggested Karl Rove was no longer under suspicion of outing Valerie Plame, and that contained Scott McClellan's denial that Rove was involved, knew at the time of the article that Rove had, in fact, outed Plame.
On October 13, 2003, Time magazine ran an article that included a quote from White House press secretary Scott McClellan insisting that White House senior adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, at least two Time editorial employees involved in the article knew McClellan's denial was false: correspondent Matthew Cooper and Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy. Cooper knew the denial was false because Rove had outed Plame to him. Duffy knew the denial was false because Cooper had sent him an email relating what Rove had told him.
Former Time White House correspondent John Dickerson, in a first-person account of his knowledge of the Plame matter, now acknowledges that he, too, knew that Rove was Cooper's source well before the October 2003 article -- an article on which he, like Cooper, received reporting credit.
Dickerson, now Slate.com's chief political correspondent, wrote a February 7 article in which he described being on a July 2003 presidential trip to Africa when two senior Bush administration officials, speaking to him on background, criticized former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had gone on a 2002 mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there. On July 6, 2003, The New York Times ran an op-ed by Wilson in which he challenged claims made by the administration in making its case for the Iraq war. According to Dickerson, the officials encouraged Dickerson to look into who sent Wilson to Niger. In his Slate article, Dickerson described a conversation he had with Cooper shortly after speaking with the Bush officials:
It had been a long week. I was co-writing a long story on the trip for the European edition, filing each day to the Web site and also filing for the domestic cover story on the fallout over the 16 words. Oh, and I also had to file a story on violence in Liberia. My inbox was a mess. In the middle of it was an e-mail from Matt Cooper telling me to call him from a land line when I had some privacy. At some time after 1 p.m. his time, I called him. He told me that he had talked to Karl Rove that morning and that Rove had given him the same Wilson takedown I'd been getting in Uganda. But Matt had the one key fact I didn't: Rove had said that Wilson's wife sent him.
So, in July 2003, Time reporters Cooper, Duffy, and Dickerson all knew that Rove had outed Plame. But three months later, all three of them helped produce a Time article (Duffy received a byline; the others were credited with having contributed to the reporting) that falsely suggested that Rove had nothing to do with it:
When word spread last week that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was launching a full criminal probe into who had leaked Plame's identity, Democrats immediately raised a public alarm: How could Justice credibly investigate so secretive an Administration, especially when the investigators are led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose former paid political consultant Karl Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak? A TIME review of federal and state election records reveals that Ashcroft paid Rove's Texas firm $746,000 for direct-mail services in two gubernatorial campaigns and one Senate race from 1984 through 1994. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are "ridiculous." Says McClellan: "There is simply no truth to that suggestion."
Cooper, Duffy, and Dickerson all knew McClellan's statement was false. But despite that knowledge, they participated in the publication of an article containing that quote, with no indication that it was untrue. They participated in the publication of that article, which, in reporting that "Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak," implied that Rove was no longer under suspicion -- even though they all knew that Rove was, in fact, Cooper's source.
Further, the October 2003 article was not the last Dickerson would write about Rove's possible involvement in outing Plame. Dickerson co-wrote a January 12, 2004, Time article (subscription required) with fellow reporter Viveca Novak:
If there are culprits in the White House who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, they may now be dependent on reporters to protect their identities. ... Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the probe last week, and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago was appointed to head it up. It's still likely that no charges will be filed when the investigation winds down. Whatever the outcome, it will test the adage that, in politics, the cover-up is more damaging than the crime.
Dickerson knew at the time there was no question of whether there were "culprits" in the White House who outed Plame. He knew there was at least one, and he knew who it was. Yet he told readers it was an open question and that no charges were likely.
In addition, Time reporter Viveca Novak (also credited on the October 13 article) knew that Rove was Cooper's source, though it isn't clear when she first learned this information. In a December 19, 2005, first-person account of her role in telling Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, that Rove had outed Plame to Cooper, Novak wrote:
Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's nothing in the phone logs," he said. In the course of the investigation, the logs of all Rove's calls around the July 2003 time period--when two stories, including Matt's, were published mentioning that Plame was Wilson's wife--had been combed, and Luskin was telling me there were no references to Matt. (Cooper called via the White House switchboard, which may be why there is no record.)
So, the reporter had the information on "background".
Sworn to secrecy.
Yet, the story goes on, and despite knowing Rove's participation in the story, TIME publishes information which is factually incorrect.
What is their excuse? That they HAD to print FALSE information, because they had an agreement to hold on to confidentiality? That they determinied reporting QUOTES from liars, without any contradictory information, was OK because the liar actually SAID the lie, and that's NEWS, even though it is a CROCK, and they KNOW it's a crock?
At the very least, could Brock send TIME a letter, asking them to clarify what their policy is, as to the CREDIBILITY of what they print? I mean, we READ TIME, and expect it to be as correct as TIME can make it, and yet now we know they publish information they know is untrue.
An overarching question comes to mind here, and TIME should be made to answer it: WHAT GOOD ARE THEY? Really, WHY should anyone place ANY value on the only thing they DO: Report the NEWS?
I wish that the MSM would just stop letting the liars in government continue to lie to us. I wish they would just go over all of their notes and compare everything that they were told to what we now know to be the truth and determine which government officials intentionally deceived us. Then they should just publish all of their names along with the lies they tried to get the MSM to publish for them. Start exposing the liars!
What's the downside to this? You mean learning the truth? Well, maybe these government liars will refuse to talk to reporters who expose liars. Then we'll eventually get to know who we can trust in the government and who we can't. If an exposed liar has a hard time finding a reporter who will print his lies, then this could only be good for the country.
But I have to ask TIME something: What possible good does it do your magazine and your readership to not expose who lied to you about your stories? What good does it do to protect a liar? All you're doing is giving the liar false credibility. Eventually TIME will be as much known for being a mouthpoiece of the Bush Administration as Fox News Channel already is (because they are).
In general, a confidence is kept professionally UNTIL THE OTHER PARTY VIOLATES the terms of the confidence.
IF a person gives information "on background", his confidence should be kept, UNLESS it turns out the information is implicated in a CRIME, or unless that same person or one of his agents goes public with a CONTRACICTORY story.
Once a confidence-seeker has shown bad faith, there is no longer any obligation for the confidence-KEEPER to remain honor-bound to the agreement.
This covering of the Bush Administration has nothing to do with confidences, violated or not, and certainly has nothing to do with THE TRUTH. It has to do with staying on the "good side" of this administration, because the alternative is to be CUT OFF.
TIME thus has behaved in a cowardly and unethical manner, the offshoot of which was to play into the partisan wishes of the Administration. Whether they were complicit or unwitting, doesn't matter. They are no longer a RELIABLE news source. What they print may indeed be FALSE, and they KNOW it is false, and they don't care about misleading the public.
Those cocktail weenies don't eat themselves.
How are these guys going to get invited to all the kewl parties and get the high-profile interviews if they go and start reporting the "truth"?
There will always be pressure to turn News into Entertainment and we are seeing such a change with most of the cable news outlets (think about almost anyone on FOX). When the ratings fall, these “Entertainers” will be let go and a new bunch put in their place. The real danger comes from professional Journalists giving up their ethics and prostituting their own profession. The damage being done to real Journalism is serious and, perhaps, irrevocable.
Think of those Samizdat Journalists in the USSR during the cold war, risking their lives to write, Xerox, and distribute news about what was really going. Many of these people went to labor camps or were just outright shot for their activities. Yet, still they felt that being a Journalist was so important they were willing to risk their lives. They understood, and they were right, that eventually printing the Truth, no matter the risk, is the right thing to do.
I don’t expect the folks at Fox news to live up to this tradition (they are not even remotely Journalists), but what about those professionals at Time, Newsweek, the NYTimes, CNN, and other major media organizations? How do these people sleep at night? Have they completely given up every last bit of integrity?
The Washington press has a lot to answer for. They spent air time spouting about politics like it's a gottcha game instead of vital to clean air, water, education, fair playing fields, etc.
Only the NOW program on PBS spends substantial amounts of time investigating how politics/policy affects our lives. The rest just play games. It's disgusting.
Protecting people that endanger national security...then hiding behind "freedom of the press" wow.
Eric Alterman has a column today that notes that Bush's budget has the huge cut to PBS. Either big business own the media, or starve the truth stations. When is C-Span going to come under fire?
Reporters for TIME simply lied. They knew that Rove and Scooter were involved, and they put forth the administration talking points.
Who to trust?
Bush is destroying the credibilty of many of our major instutions and saying that voting is all there is to democracy. This nation of sheep is being led over the cliff. How many more bad things - can you believe that they simply broke the law and started spying on Americans - do they have to do before more people get scared and take them down. Hope it isn't too late.
C-SPAN is owned by a conglomerate of cable companies. Very often I have watched Brian Lamb spout the GOP agenda while downplaying comments from progressive callers.
There's no reason for C-SPAN to come under fire from the right if they're already doing their bidding.
You know, if you'd say to these reporters that they should have told the truth at the time, I can just about guarantee they'll get defensive. The journalists just don't get how they were taken-- or don't want to admit that Rove dragged them into this story probably precisely so they'd keep his involvement a secret. They've been carrying water for that liar-- willing abetting him-- all this time. And to hear them tell it, they don't think they did anything wrong. They don't think they owed their readers the truth.
Makes me think that we should make it clear that we actually do think they owe that much-- after all, we're paying for their magazine.
Maybe we need to stop paying-- and reading. They seem to have such contempt for us. I still am wondering how Deborah Howell and John Harris justify their vitriolic response to their readers.
This is not about news or true journalism, it is about the bottom line for investors internationally. Look at how Time Warner describes itself on its web site, and see if you find the words "news," or "journalism" or "reporting" in its self portrait:
"Whether measured by quality, popularity or financial results, our divisions are at the top of their categories. America Online, Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, Home Box Office, New Line Cinema, Turner Broadcasting System and Warner Bros. Entertainment maintain unrivaled reputations for creativity and excellence as they keep people informed, entertained and connected.
"Our enterprise is more than a collection of great brands that are owned under one roof. Time Warner’s businesses strive to gain competitive advantage from opportunities for constructive collaboration. ..."
"We are innovators in technology, products and services. On the forefront of technology, Time Warner has pioneered industry-shifting products such as the DVD and digital cable. And Time Warner’s businesses continue to develop new and uniquely effective ways for our partners and advertisers to reach the markets, audiences and customers they seek.
"Time Warner Cable owns and manages cable systems serving 10.9 million subscribers in 27 states, which include some of the most technologically advanced, best-clustered cable systems in the country with more than 75% of the Company's customers in systems of 300,000 subscribers or more. Utilizing a fully upgraded advanced cable network and a steadfast commitment to providing consumers with choice, value and world-class customer service, Time Warner Cable is an industry leader in delivering advanced products and services such as video on demand, high- definition television, digital video recorders, high-speed data, wireless home networking and Digital Phone. Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc. "
"About Time Warner -Time Warner Inc. is a leading media and entertainment company, whose businesses include interactive services, cable systems, filmed entertainment, television networks and publishing."
Wish I could remember the name of the Reagan cabinet guy who conceded a few years ago that the objective of the Reagan administration was to place the nation so far in debt that the public would support dismantling the social programs that had been built over the previous 50 years. Bush has picked up the mantle. Unfortunately, the ones in his own party who have finally recognized that fact are in many respects too little, too late, since we have in place the deregulation of media leading to conglomerates like Time and too many others to list; energy bills to subsidize Exxon and its like; environmental deregulation, mining deregulation, food and drug deregulation of food while increasing enforcement of drug legislation and passing new legislative subsidies to protect the drug industry, and on and on. Our grandchildren are going to grow up in a different world with less opportunity than you and I had.
Unfortunately, Time-Warner's position makes it more than a sysymptom. When it withholds news that could impact taking down an administration in 2004, it is part of the cause.
What conspriracy, just Scooter all by his lonesome spreading the word. Nothing to see here. Just ask the mainstream media they'll tell you the same thing.
The first, second and third columns of our nation's democracy lay on the ground. Now just another domino the fourth column is knocked down by them as it tries to prop them up.
HOW DARE THEY! Reporters should be ethical and moral in their reporting of the news, not use it as a POLITICAL PLATFORM! My God, we have enough POLITICS in the world, were is TRUTH and HONESTY???