I Need Some Double Super Secret Background Information

Drudge is blaring the news that he has finally gotten the joke - "double super secret" is an Animal House reference!  The Wonkette can breather easier.

Now, my question - just what are the journalistic distinctions between "background", "deep background", and, I suppose, "Double super secret" background.

Everything I know about this I learned from Watergate and Henry Kissinger.  My recollection is that "backgrounders" are to educate the reporter and not for attribution.  However, with the info in hand, the reporter may be able to go out and confirm the information elsewhere.

Now, I am hazy as to what "deep" was meant to add to that.  As I recall, "background" meant, in effect, "you can cite me as a second source (with vague attribution) if a primary source can be found"; "deep" background means that the source can not be cited at all.

Other thoughts are welcomed.

Comments

[SteveMG]

What are the chances that the Left will get Rove (or Libby or anyone else in the W.H.) with "Nadagate"?

zero point zero zero

You may go Mr. Blutarski. And take Mr. Marshall and Mr. Drum with you.

SMG

[Seven Machos]

There is a little-known codicil in the United States Constitution which gives the CIA unlimited power in times of a journalistic emergnency.

Someone's got to put her foot down. And that foot...is me.

[BumperStickerist]

Myth:

'Double Super Secret Probation' is in Animal House.

The phrase isn't.

It's 'Double Secret Probation.'

No 'Super'.

Proof, and stuff -

http://www.animalhouse.com/

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/animal_house/double_secret.wav

{in sig}

http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/animal_house/double_secret2.wav

Effing Press, can't get a pop culture effing reference effing right.

Basically, they're worthless and weak.

[Steve Carr]

Cooper makes it pretty clear in his testimony, and his understanding is generally accepted in the business. "On background" means you can use the information, but not attribute it to the person by name. There's no "secondary source/primary source" distinction, at least not in my experience. If Rove had not wanted the information to be used, he would have said "this is off the record."

"Deep background" means that whatever attribution you use -- "well-informed source," "administration official" -- should be as vague as possible, so that there's no way of identifying the person who gave you the information.

[msdl5]

Since "background" and even something like "deep background" have had understood meanings and protocol in the past, Matt Cooper and 'Time' have ensured that any official will not provide much info for some time.

The complaints about people being too secret are now going to become the norm.

It seems to me that Cooper and Novak both, in this instance, caused more harm to 'sources' snd sourcing than they did to their subject(s).

To top it off, Judith Miller remains in jail and Fitzgerald still moves on.

[Steve Carr]

Many of the briefings that adminsistration officials give the press are "on background," which is why they're called "background briefings":

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/govern/109th/StatePressConfer25mar05.htm

The information can be printed freely, but the source(s) is/are identified only as "senior administration officials" or the like.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Seven years of journalism school down the drain.

[TM]

This is from the 1994 American Journalism Review:

On Background – Bob Woodward , author: "It means that I'm not going to identify the source but I'm going to use it all."

David Hawpe , editor, Louisville Courier-Journal: "Well, that normally means you can use it only for your own information, just so you understand."

Karen Hosler , congressional correspondent, Baltimore's Sun: "On background means you can attribute word for word but you can't use the person's name. At the White House it always has to be a 'senior administration official.' "

Michael Gartner , editor, Daily Tribune, Ames, Iowa: "It means different things to different people. I've never understood it."

Philip Scheffler , senior producer, 60 Minutes: "Hmmmm. Those distinctions are of much greater interest to people who work in Washington."

On Deep Background – Hosler : "You can report as 'it was learned.' You can almost state it as fact. Sometimes you have to hedge your words."

So, Are There Differences Between Off the Record and On Background? George Freeman , New York Times attorney: "Yes, there are, but I've never quite figured them out. I tell reporters if they really want the source to understand, make it clear. But those words generally cause more confusion than anything else."

Good point about the background briefings.

Also about seven years.

[TM]

Tim Noah of Slate polled some Wapo reporters and didn't get much insight, either.

And this has their own answer:

National Academy of Engineering Website http://www.nae.edu/NAE/pubundcom.nsf/weblinks/AEGR-5L7MAJ?OpenDocument

Working with the Media: Journalism Lingo

This page contains definitions for journalism words and phrases that may come up during an interview.

Background: Refers to information you give that will be attributed in the story, not to your name but to your title or position.

Deep Background: Refers to information you give that will be included in the article but not attributed to you or to your title or position.

[Human]

Here is some more info on the Roving Lie -
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement
By Rep. Waxman
YubaNet.com
Friday 15 July 2005
A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.
Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information. [1] The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it. [2]
The Prohibition against "Confirming" Classified Information
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
Before ... confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ... confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure. [3]
The Independent Duty to Verify the Classified Status of Information
Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information." [4]
Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified." [5]
"Negligent" Disclosure of Classified Information
Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information. [6] The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [7]
The White House Obligations under Executive Order 12958
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.
The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
________________________________________
End Notes
[1] Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_ 12958_amendment.html).
[2] Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).
[3] Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf).
[4] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b).
[5] Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.
[6] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added).
[7] Id. at 5.5(c). 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(b).

[Roger Fraley]

My comment is shorter than the one just before me and I have fewer end notes. The key word is secret. It's not part of the Animal Housequote. Cooper learned this stuff in secret and then published it (after Novak). What a mensch.

[Seven Machos]

I know when I'm looking for cool, objective analysis, I turn immediately to Henry Waxman.

[Mark Coffey]

From Wikipedia (not that THAT means anything) - Most journalists would understand "deep background" to mean that the information may not be included in the article but is used by the journalist to enhance his or view of the subject matter, or to act as a guide to other leads or sources. Most deep background information is confirmed elsewhere before being reported.

[Steve Carr]

That Wikipedia article is off. It suggests that briefings on "background" cannot be directly quoted, but as the link above shows, background briefings are directly quoted all the time.

[SamAm]

I'm sure Rove's never heard of the phrase "off the record."

Well, I'd better not give him any ideas.

And that too-cute-by-nine-tenths "oops" on his part is understood by most journalists as "I just gave you juicy information because I want it used."

And on a more general not let's not start blaming Matt Cooper for our troubles now...

[AJStrata]

Mark,

Where you aware of Matt Cooper's ties to Hillary?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/350

Or am I just so naive about all this DC stuff (where I grew up!)

[BumperStickerist]

Well, Mary Matalin is married to James Carville, which, iirc, was only the 5th Sign of the Apocalypse.

Though one wonders what sort of password and encryption software is on their home comptuers, what anti-eavesdropping equipment is on the phone, and if, 'cones of silence' are present in Matalin/Carville household.

All's fair.

[RiverRat]

Plame Outed in Moscow and by CIA in Cuba in the '90s!

A little more cold water for the fire!

[Paul Zrimsek]

"They can't do that to our agents!"

"Only we can do that to our agents."

[Slartibartfast]

Human:

Please learn how to link.

[RiverRat]

Gertz report on 90s outings

[RiverRat]

"They can't do that to our agents!"

"Only we can do that to our agents."

WTF?

[Paul Zrimsek]

Just a brief return to the original theme, Rat. (Which BTW would be a good Delta name.)

[richard mcenroe]

Double super secret background means:

"Reporter: I can say the name to you and then tell everybody you leaked it to me..."

[MaDr]

Isn't it more informative that the media doesn't think a crime has been commited in their court brief, but then tell we the public that one has been?

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20

[BumperStickerist]

So, the Known Facts start out with:

CIA attempts to cover up a Clinton-era security breach regarding NOC agents by asking Novak to not divulge the name of their already compromised NOC agent.

suh-weet.

:|

Since the Left has already established Rove's bona fides as Omnisciently Evil, then it's obvious that Rove knew that Plame's cover had been blown like a then sitting US president {gratuituous fulfillment of lefty expectations}.

As such, US security was never compromised.

All that's left now is for Atrios/Kos/Digby et al to develop a case of subjunctivitis and preface every single scenario with 'But if Rove had .....' or 'If it were the case ...' or some such.

Ironically, reality turns out to be the bane of the reality-based.

[BumperStickerist]

hmmmm ... let's see if that's a bad tag

testing ... 1.2.3

[Human]

Peace to all. To seven machos - How about a cool, objective analysis, from yourself on the Interpatation of -
[1] Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_ 12958_amendment.html).
[2] Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/ 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).
[3] Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf).
[4] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b).
[5] Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.
[6] Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added)?

your fellow Human

[ed]

Hmmmm.

The only real evolution in this whole sordid thing is the shifting from lame, and rather uninteresting, to extremely boring.

This is like reading a Russian novel. 850 pages of nothing, and finally someone's uncle dies from a fish bone.

With any luck we'll find out sometime this week if Rove likes Skittles or not.

Now that's action!

[kim]

Ed: This is either A. The Democrats enlisted a rogue CIA to topple Bush for the best thing he did in his first administration, topple Saddam, or B. Several disaffected career bureaucrats, hoping for promotion, enlist the press in a disinformation campaign about Dearest Leader of the World, or C. Both.

Boring? Only if you try to make sense of the disinformation.

Watergate, and Plamegate. Frustrated bureaucrats started both. What can be done about that misuse of power by those specifically hired and tasked with using government power.

Felt, Wilson, Berger, Clarke, and so many others. These are bad and dangerous men.
===========================================

[jukeboxgrad]

KIM: "The Democrats enlisted a rogue CIA to topple Bush"

Obviously. And the core of their plot was to exercise mind control to force Rove to say to Cooper (paraphrase) "Wilson's wife works for the CIA."

By the way, I'm sure soon we'll be hearing about how they're all traitors. Of course, we already know that Wilson is a traitor, even though no one I know can present a single example, over his long career, of anyone on the right saying a bad word about him (prior to Rovegate, of course). But soon all the others will also be labeled as traitors: Tenet, for originally referring the case to the DOJ (never mind the fact that Bush gave Tenet a medal). Ashcroft, for appointing the special counsel (never mind that Ashcroft was Bush's man). Fitz, for pursuing the case agressively (never mind that he's a Republican). Cooper, because his wife is an active Democrat (never mind that Cooper covered for Rove in the entire period leading up to the election, and very nearly went to jail still covering for Rove; in the end this didn't happen only because of some interesting last-minute decisions by Pearlstine and Luskin, which let Cooper off the hook). Slimy traitors, the lot of them.

Kim, face facts. This is not a Congress of the opposing party going after the president (which is what happened with Clinton). This whole story is about portions of the executive branch of government (CIA, DOJ, FBI) going after the White House, for very good reason. In other words, all the folks leading this investigation work for Bush. Pretty stunning. Obviously there are still some professionals in government who believe in quaint concepts like integrity and the rule of law.

[me (and TCO)]

I think there could be some element of beauracracy fighting against the administration. That sort of thing is not unknown in this town...

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy runescape .