Not-Reported-Here Journalism, NY Times Style

Anne Kornblut of the NY Times earns a coveted "Ostrich du Jour" for her non-coverage of the Novak/Plame story:

Columnist Hints Book Was Source That Led to Use of C.I.A. Officer's Name

One of the most puzzling aspects of the C.I.A. leak case has had to do with the name of the exposed officer. Why did the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak identify her as Valerie Plame in exposing her link to the C.I.A. in July 2003 when she had been known for years both at the agency and in her personal life by her married name, Valerie Wilson?

Mr. Novak offered a possible explanation for the disconnect on Monday, suggesting in his column that he could have obtained Ms. Wilson's maiden name from the directory Who's Who in America, which used that name in identifying her as the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador.

Mr. Novak did not explicitly cite the directory as his source. Nor was this his first public reference to the Who's Who listing. In a column in October 2003, three months after he had first disclosed Ms. Wilson's name and her role, Mr. Novak cited the published listing as evidence that Ms. Wilson's identity was "no secret."

But in drawing renewed attention to the published listing, Mr. Novak seemed to suggest more directly than ever before that the scrutiny that has focused on which of his sources provided him the name might have been misplaced, and that he might well have figured it out by himself.   

He did not cite it as his source, he has mentioned this before - just what is the news hook, Ms. Kornblut?

I can certainly identify her problem - Ms. Kornblut is struggling with the "Not Reported Here" syndrome that vexes the Times on occasion.  Robert Novak was responding to a story broken last week in the WaPo; as a proper Timeswoman, Ms. Kornblut is obliged to head off on an unexpected tangent, rather than focus on the main story broken elsewhere.  The main story, of course, was that the CIA press spokesperson said Novak was warned not to publish; Bob Somerby had thoughts, as did I.

But even with the limited goal of heading down a blind alley, Ms. Kornblut takes a wrong turn.  Let's imagine for a moment that she has identified the central issue - did Novak get Ms. Wilson's name from a "Who's Who", as he "hints"?  Well, Josh Marshall correctly notes that this hint is at odds with Novak's own statement from July 2003 - "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me.  They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

And I will add this - the Times has plenty of big-time reporters.  It should have been easy enough for Ms. Kornblut to rustle up quotes from William Safire and others opining on what *they* might do if they were in Novak's hypothetical shoes.  If, for example, Mr. Safire had looked up a name in "Who's Who", would his ethical obligation to conceal his source oblige him only to "suggest" that, or might he feel free to come right out and say so? 

In a better story, Ms. Kornblut would get a few reporters to opine on whether Novak's coyness about using "Who's Who" makes sense in terms of normal journalistic practice.  Maybe reporters like to play at being The Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz; maybe any self-respecting reporter would be mortified to admit that occasionally their heralded investigative journalism amounts to opening a reference book.  I don't know - and after reading her article, I still don't know.

MORE:  FWIW, I don't think "Who's Who" is where Novak got the name - I'm guessing that someone heard the story about "Wilson's wife" and looked her up.  Of course, Ms. Kornblut does not mention that Wilson gave his wife's maiden name in his on-line bio, either.

BONUS - the good news about this Kornblut "coverage" is that it allows the Times to slide past the point that Novak discussed his "outing" column with a CIA spokesperson before publishing.  The relevant phrase from Novak's original column - "The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him" - has yet to appear in the NY Times.

IRRESISTIBLE CHEAP SHOT:  When Josh Marshall play tennis, does he play on both sides of the net?  Look, either Ms. Plame's *name* is significant, or her association with the CIA is significant.  But since anyone can get her name quite easily, once they know "Wilson's wife is with the CIA", I would argue that her name, per se, is not important.

And Josh Marshall would agree with me - sometimes.  However, within the same post, I see these two points:

(a) The disclosure was identifying Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, not that he had a wife, which needless to say was not a state secret.

(b)  Many have also speculated that Plame/Wilson was identified by the name 'Plame' precisely to cause the most damage to her career and the clandestine networks she had been involved in, since this was name she'd used through most of her career.

In other words, there's a very clear potential motive for referring to her by her maiden name. It's not a meaningless distinction.

Sure, if the bad guys lacked access to Who's Who and the internet, there would be an extra dose of malice in releasing her maiden name.  Otherwise, as Josh sometimes seems to think, there is not.  Well, the "many" who have so speculated includes Joe Wilson himself, so this may just represent covering fire.

Or maybe - could the Evildoers who knew she was covert *and* dug up her maiden name have been unaware of the Who's Who and internet resources?  Sure, that makes sense...

MORE:  Save JeraLynn Merritt's Hair!  As part of our ongoing service to various bloggers, let's note that Ms. TalkLeft was making this point about Novak's non-disclosure yesterday.  Fortunately, the Times was on it...

Comments

[kim]

Sometimes the search for a single source seems like the vigil to see the first bubble as a pot boils.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'they gave me the name'

More likely 'he' gave me the name. Which points the source of 'Plame' being George Tenet, who would likely have known Valerie before she married Joe Wilson.

Tenet also fits SAO and not 'a partisan gunslinger'.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'there's a very clear potential motive for referring to her by her maiden name.'

Only if you knew that she'd (1)been a covert operative and (2) used that name while operating overseas as a covert agent--which, according to one of her former bosses, is not at all certain.

Some of the operatives outed recently by an Italian judge were pseudonyms.

[boris]

I would argue that her name, per se, is not important.

Of the info bits made public during this snafu some were almost certainly classified.

Which ones were and weren't is hard to nail down because ... well ... that information is probably classified.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Thanks Plame Blogcasting Network! It takes real genius to keep Nada-gate going......A Who's Who listing for our super-secret agent Ms. Plame! Brillant!

[Dwilkers]

Gad I wish Fitz would finish this up, its been 2 years after all. How long can something like this take FGS? He has to know the basic facts by now.

[kim]

Is the suspense killing you? Do you suppose Fitz is a Hitchcock fan?
================================================

[kim]

Is he politically ambitious a la Giuliani or Spitzer?
============================================

[TM]

Less like Spitzer, more like The Terminator, according to a WaPo profile which has gone missing.

Oh, here we go.

[Black Jack]

Perhaps the time has come to start looking into the provenance of the Niger Yellowcake memos. Could Judith Miller possibly provide some insight into the issue? Under oath she might be able to help locate the forger. That would be a great help to understanding.

[kim]

I desperately hope that Fitz has joined forces with the FBI investigation of the forgeries, and is closing in on the perps.

They probably stem from weeks before the 01 inauguration. Was their origin Italian renegade greed, French duplicity, Admin conniving, or CIA plotting. That is the question worth considering, and it may have appealed to Fitz.
================================================

[kim]

Or Chalabi?
==========

[Syl]

I'm afraid from the leaks so far, anyway, it looks like Fitzgerald isn't looking into motive and thus at Wilson, Niger, yellowcake, or forgeries much if at all. I hope I missed something.

It wouldn't be Chalabi. He's gotten a bum rap AFAIC. Anyway, he wouldn't do such a sloppy job. And the sloppy job seems to indicate that the forgeries were supposed to be detected as forgeries. Chalabi was pro invastion, not agin it, and attempting to discredit our intelligence would weaken the case for war.

[kim]

If the origin were French duplicity, CIA plot, or Chalabi, they may have been meant to be found out. Italian greed may have just been inept. That leaves Admin; would they make it easy to discover?
==================================================

[kim]

It is curious that the IAEA found out the forgery in hours, at the last minute. I've seen, but can't find now, a post by Eriposte which claims that the CIA figured out the forgery long before is generally known, and that there may be two sets of forgeries.
=================================================

[kim]

and I think the leaks may be a poor guide, since they all seem to have an agenda. Fitz's thinking is still cryptic.
==============================================

[Syl]

Not Chalabi, Kim. Because he was pro-invasion. The forgeries were done for the money (and poorly done) or done as disinformation (so they would be discovered easily enough as forgeries and thus discredit our case for war).

You may very well be right about the leaks. All I can do is hope.

[MJW]

kim -- is this the Eriposte post you were referring to?

[kim]

Yep, MJW, and thanks.

Yeah, I don't know about Chalabi. He is only in it because of the Judith Miller connection and because nothing is beyond the capability of the Master of the Bazaar. I couldn't speculate as to his motives but if I could there is little reason to limit the possibilities. It fits his modus, his motive(granted not the obviousness of the forgeries), and the timeline.
=================================================

[kim]

Yep, MJW, and thanks.

Yeah, I don't know about Chalabi. He is only in it because of the Judith Miller connection and because nothing is beyond the capability of the Master of the Bazaar. I couldn't speculate as to his motives but if I could there is little reason to limit the possibilities. It fits his modus, his motive(granted not the obviousness of the forgeries), and the timeline.
=================================================

[BCN]

I have been thinking this for a while and am still confused why Plame would be a name a covert operative (spy) would go by. It was her real name. I would think that the agency could come up with something better for cover than your real name. I understand that there is the whole NOC thing about working for an other company, I would still think they could come up with something better than her real name. Just my 2 cents.

Is there an answer?

[kim]

What a fascinating tuppenny you've picked up. Was it face up?
===============================================

[L.E.Kline III]

I don't know alot. But if I were a betting man I'd put even money that Miller, The NYT and some one in the CIA are going to get caught in a web of their own making.
Copper called Rove,Asked him?
Rove said, I've heard that?
Rove released reporters to talk?
Fitz knows miller's source.
I just can't believe that Miller and the NYT would protect anyone in the Bush WH.
Wilson was fast and loose with the truth.
He was trying to make Bush look bad.
This whole investigation was suppose to nail Rove?
But that doesn't seem to be what Fitz is looking at.
I tell ya, Oh what tangled webs we weave....

Cordially,
J.C.

[TigerHawk]

Two points.

First, this is getting so complicated that I can't follow it, but I still find your work, Tom, to be intensely entertaining. Great stuff.

Second, one of the reasons why I find it so entertaining is that you write stuff like this: "But even with the limited goal of heading down a blind alley, Ms. Kornblut takes a wrong turn." Bwahahahaha!

[jukeboxgrad]

PATRICK: "Which points the source of 'Plame' being George Tenet"

Why would Tenet send this matter to DOJ knowing the trail led back to him?

DWILKERS: "Gad I wish Fitz would finish this up"

He wants to crack Miller first.

LE: "Copper called Rove,Asked him? Rove said, I've heard that?"

You're mixing up the Rove-Novak conversation with the Rove-Cooper conversation. In the former, Rove allegedly said, "I heard that too." In the latter, Rove told Cooper about Plame. Cooper didn't already know.

"I just can't believe that Miller and the NYT would protect anyone in the Bush WH."

Maybe you're not familiar with how Miller shilled for Chalabi et al pre-war.

"This whole investigation was suppose to nail Rove? But that doesn't seem to be what Fitz is looking at."

I guess that's why Fitz just called two of Rove's people.

[kim]

It's still curious, as BCN pointed out, that Valerie Plame used her real name through a career as an undercover agent.
================================================

[jukeboxgrad]

How do you know that's true? And if you know that it was true some of the time, how do you know that it was true 100% of the time?

[kim]

Why don't you get the details of it for us? The curiosity of it is that her real name was used at all. But that was apparent to the curious, and would be missed by the hyperreactive dogmatics among us.

Or else it is not unusual to use a real name despite becoming undercover. Does anyone know?
=================================================

[jukeboxgrad]

"Why don't you get the details of it for us?"

Because it was you who made the claim, not me. Let me know when you would like to step forward in order to find proof for all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations I might decide to pull out of my hat, the way you do.

[kim]

Oh go boil your head.

Anybody know if it is unusual for an undercover agent to use her birth name?
=====================