"On The Story", a CNN show airing tonight at 7 PM ET, will include a segment on the Fitzgerald investigation. It is hosted by Jacki Schechner and will feature bloggers Jeralyn Merritt and, yes, yours truly. The spot will probably air in the second half hour.
We taped Friday night, so I can tell you that Jeralyn will be calm and incisive, as expected.
As for my own performance - I can't wait to see.
The first question was to contrast Bob Woodard's performance with Judy Miller's in the Fitzgerald investigation. I rose to Bob's defense, pointing out that investigative reporters are not meant to be particularly cooperative with prosecutors. I also emphasized the point that Judy spent over a year on a losing court fight *after* her source identified himself to Fitzgerald; Woodward gave evidence within two weeks of his source's decision to come forward. Media maven Jack Shafer skipped right past that in his "Bob Ain't Judy" column, so I was either original or painfully obvious. And yes, Jeralyn pointed out that Woodward may have had a duty to disclose his conflict in commenting on a case in which he was a concealed participant.
The second question was - hmm, what was that question again? Jeralyn answered first and I was so taken by her eloquence that I had a Scooter Libby moment, which may, if there is a God, not survive the videotape editor.
Anyway, the second question related to the interaction of the media with bloggers. I framed the question very narrowly in what was left of my functioning mind, and responded as if the question had been, "How should the media react to being chewed on from the right and left every day"?
A more interesting response would have been to chat about how the media ought to be relating to bloggers. Framed that way, my "Coulda, woulda, shoulda" answer would have been that, since bloggers are the media's most avid and engaged customers, we ought to be a valuable source for feedback and ideas. If Jeralyn Merritt, a top defense attorney, is willing to take time out of her day to research the legal ins and outs of Fitzgerald's investigation, any reporter with a lick of sense ought to avail himself or herself of that effort.
Well, we'll see what airs tonight. I figure two of my fifteen minutes have been exhausted, but I have thirteen to burn!
UPDATE: The Political Teen has the video, thanks very much.
Wow. And here I was going to waste the time to find the transcript of your blog being merely mentioned (for all of three seconds) on CNN a few days ago for your enjoyment. Your personal appearance on the network is slightly more significant (and so I won't bother finding the transcript).
Congratulations!
P.S. And if you happen to pull an Andrea Mitchell and misstate anything, I'll be happy to parse you to death. (I kid, I kid...sort of)
Posted by: Jim E. | November 19, 2005 at 02:39 PM
i hope this brings you lots more readers and advertisers so we can start serving refreshments in the wee hours, Tom.
Posted by: clarice | November 19, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Man, I knew you when you were nothing.
Let's see, when I was eight years old, I shook Sam Huff's hand. I helped Barry Goldwater with his luggage at Dulles Airport. In college, I interviewed Sidney Hook and William Kunstler.
And now this.
Congrats.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | November 19, 2005 at 03:08 PM
All right!
About time!
Posted by: Syl | November 19, 2005 at 03:38 PM
I had a Scooter Libby moment
What?!? You lied through your teeth in the most brazen way to cover for the most powerful man in the United States?! I'll definitely be tuning in this evening.
Nicely done.
Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2005 at 03:52 PM
Three cheers for TM!
I bet you faired far better than you are letting on. Humility is a great virtue.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 19, 2005 at 03:54 PM
Good job - don't get all puffed up though. I wouldn't want to see you try to start up your own "new media" operation in the Rainbow Room.....
PS Just in case you were wondering, I hasven't got $3.5 mil lying around....
Posted by: TexasToast | November 19, 2005 at 03:57 PM
JOM readers, Tom did great. It's hard to do a show via webcam at home vs. going to a studio. I had to sit on three telephone books to be up high enough. The show also airs tomorrow for those that miss it tonight.
Jackie and Abbie are great, and CNN features bloggers more than the other networks, which is very much to their credit.
Posted by: TalkLeft | November 19, 2005 at 03:59 PM
But..but...but...did you meet Wilson in the Green room?
And, um, was he bragging about his wife again?
Posted by: Syl | November 19, 2005 at 04:10 PM
conflict in commenting on a case in which he was a concealed participant
Sorry Tom, but this is true of virtual any story with a secret or anonymous source.
Any and every time a reporter fails to identify the source, especially when an alleged crime is involved, he/she becomes a participant in the story. The reporter often knows more than is written into the story; it is that withheld portion that creates a conflict, as, in the best case, it withholds the context of the anonymous information, or, in the worst case, withholds the knowledge of a crime.
I think Woodward acted properly (or at least within nominal bounds of conduct). His comments on the case reflected the knowledge he had of the case; it was a silly case, where the only possible losers were anyone involved.
Fitzgerald, for his part, should have excepted the obvious truth that he now believes, that there was no original crime, and ended it there.
I fault Libby for not taking the "Ollie North 101" course on criminal/Congressional interrogations by not starting every sentence with "to the best of my recollection".
Posted by: Neo | November 19, 2005 at 04:17 PM
--I had to sit on three telephone books to be up high enough.
Oh I bet the in home webcam thing is tough...and you have to think of back drop vs. laundry and kid toys!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 19, 2005 at 04:33 PM
"A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case."
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111818290002570022&dt=20051118182900&w=RTR&coview=
Posted by: bob redman | November 19, 2005 at 04:34 PM
It appears that the outing of Plame the super secret agent, er, desk jockey, was so damaging to the CIA that you now have Clinton's ex-CIA director helping out Libby...
"A group of Libby's friends and colleagues have joined a committee to help raise money for Libby's defense, a spokeswoman said. The members include former CIA director James Woolsey, ex-Republican Sens. Fred Thompson and Alan Simpson, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, former vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp and top Bush fundraisers Bill Paxon and Mercer Reynolds. "
Posted by: bob redman | November 19, 2005 at 04:38 PM
"A lawyer in the case said Woodward's source had not previously testified before a grand jury in the leak case."
Hmmm. That's more definitive than the Wash Post's story, which says just the opposite.
But I wonder if the "before a GJ" has any significance. What if he were interviewed by FBI agents, but never testified in front of the GJ? Is that a blanket denial, or a weasly denial? Or is it a total lie (like Rove's and Libby's early assertions that they weren't at all involved).
I'm beginning to think that looking at all of these denials is a fool's errand. Pretty soon it will be leaked that Woodward's source denies being Woodward's source.
Posted by: Jim E. | November 19, 2005 at 04:53 PM
"Or is it a total lie (like Rove's and Libby's early assertions that they weren't at all involved)."
Rove and Libby never asserted anything. Now Scott McClellan said those two weren't involved in the leaking of classified information. Now help me out here, who exactly have been charged with leaking classified information (let alone found guilty of it).
Please bring in the next case Rusty.
Posted by: judge wop | November 19, 2005 at 05:24 PM
"Rove and Libby never asserted anything."
Please. McClellan has repeatedly made clear that he was speaking on behalf of Rove and Libby. And he said it was "ridiculous" to say they were "involved" in any way.
Doug Llewelyn, get us a new judge!
Posted by: Jim E. | November 19, 2005 at 05:33 PM
"The second question was - hmm, what was that question again? Jeralyn answered first and I was so taken by her eloquence that I had a Scooter Libby moment, which may, if there is a God, not survive the videotape editor."
Look at it this way TM, when you watch it tonight it will be as if you are hearing it for the first time.
Glad I caught the post, I'll be tuning in.
Posted by: Dwilkers | November 19, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Watching Tom on CNN ... don't exactly know what he said ... I can't get past how cute he is. Whew! [oh relax, I'm a granny.]
Posted by: Squiggler | November 19, 2005 at 07:58 PM
OK, so Jeralyn is a hottie.
And whoa, that Delia Gallager that was reporting on religious issues before your segment? Raaaarrr.
Seriously, good segment. Short on PlameGate specifics, but you guys made some good points about the media conflict in this case.
Congrats on getting the, um...exposure. 8^)
Posted by: Dwilkers | November 19, 2005 at 07:59 PM
Tom, nicely done...and well deserved!
Posted by: Mark Coffey | November 19, 2005 at 08:04 PM
Admit I've only come here when Jane has linked here but caught you on CNN tonight and had to stop in to say you did GREAT! You guys (bloggers) are going to be the ones who will ultimately force "show biz/corporate" journalists to get back to being "investigative" journalists! Congrats!
Posted by: jen | November 19, 2005 at 08:06 PM
You did great, Tom!
A sweater? Yummmmmmmmmmmmm.
Of course, what I got out of the segment, from CNN's point of view, is that half the time bloggers speculate, the other half they nag the MSM.
They probably actually believe it.
Posted by: Syl | November 19, 2005 at 08:23 PM
Well done! I can only imagine how difficult it would be to do such an interview via webcam. Jeralyn did awesome, too, but she, unlike you, has had extensive experience being a talking head. I was impressed with both. Very cool.
Posted by: Jim E. | November 19, 2005 at 08:38 PM
Way to go, TM.
Posted by: Seven Machos | November 19, 2005 at 08:42 PM
Nice work TM. I really have enjoyed reading your speculations and appreciate all of the time and effort you have spent following this saga.
Posted by: David W | November 19, 2005 at 08:57 PM
Jim, anyone who can actually remember "Doug Llewelyn"'s name definitely doesn't have a Libby (or major media reporter) memory.
Posted by: judge wop | November 19, 2005 at 09:02 PM
Squiggler — you're a grandfather?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | November 19, 2005 at 09:12 PM
Well done Minute Man. First time I've watched CNN in years...
Posted by: Jim Elbe | November 19, 2005 at 09:48 PM
LOL. I think I lack the proper plumbing to be a Grandfather.
Posted by: Squiggler | November 19, 2005 at 10:04 PM
shoot I missed it tonight...
syl
A sweater? Yummmmmmmmmmmmm.
what does this mean?...from the girl types I get the feeling TM had hearts pumping. I'm just glad it is running again tomorrow.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 19, 2005 at 11:18 PM
Dammit, I missed it. Where's that Political Teen kid with the video when you need him?
Posted by: Toby Petzold | November 19, 2005 at 11:35 PM
Tom will appear tomorrow (Sunday) from 1-2pm ET, on CNN's "On the Story."
FAME
I love it!!! Congrats, Tom.
Posted by: Lesley | November 20, 2005 at 01:17 AM
Are Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff reading TM!!!
And to think TM, you did their story without dialing a phone!
They peg Armitage for both Woodward and Novak. Second startling factor of the story, is I think it may be one of the first stories that actually get some of the Wilson portions correct.
"...It was Novak who identified Plame as the CIA operative who helped send her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Africa to check on reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the country of Niger....
Today I speculated that Wilson would be radioactive after he called for a Woodward probe, and I think we are seeing more and more shades of that.
PS-I am still jealous I didn't see TM the HUNK tonight. I did a google image search after all the comments made me so curious...Tom Maguire primarily returns Tom Cruise and a few Toby's (not the rabbit).
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 20, 2005 at 02:26 AM
oh...I should say Nuero did a good Job of the Armitage as source too!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 20, 2005 at 02:28 AM
Tom,
I am devastated I missed it. Just read your post now. Did anyone live blog it? Your mother perhaps? (LOL)
Will you do a post blogging CNN 'On The Story' today please, and let us know what actually aired in the end. Thanks, and congrats btw, I always knew you had that TV Star quality.
Posted by: Alexandra | November 20, 2005 at 03:49 AM
Posted by: Dwilkers | November 20, 2005 at 08:16 AM
congrats!!
so Jeralyn and Tom are hotties
would their children be good looking bipolar crazies or cute well adjusted moderates???
Posted by: windansea | November 20, 2005 at 10:40 AM
It would be interesting to find out from Novak if he has the same kind of limited release as Woodward--one which would preclude him from disclosing his source publicly. If Novak's source is Armitage, it would also be interesting to know how many (if any) non-classified sources he (Armitage) has for his knowledge of Wilson-Plame and who they are. Wilson's call for an investigation of Woodward, rather than an investigation of Woodward's source is very curious. He must also have an inkling of who the source is and know it doesn't fit his story line.
Posted by: TP | November 20, 2005 at 11:50 AM
This bit in the Newsweek article top links to:
This is something I've totally missed--that Woodward has indicated he knows who Novak's source is. Anybody know where that comes from?
Posted by: Syl | November 20, 2005 at 11:57 AM
Tom, you did great! If this was your first TV broadcast, it surely didn't show - and Jeralyn's public punditry has improved since her media ascent back in the O.J. days.
During your segment, Jacki Schechner cited an advantage that bloggers have over MSM journalists: the ability to speculate about such mysteries as Bob Woodward's source for the Plame/CIA connection. She was right, which makes the naming of Richard Armitage in the Newsweek article topsecretk9 linked above an exception to her rule - unless it is a well-educated, well-sourced guess by Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff.
I think I smell another fascinating Maguire post in the making.
Posted by: Terrie | November 20, 2005 at 12:19 PM
Well, Woodward is supposed to be on Larry King tonight (9:00 EST) and now TM is a CNN performance artist. King is famous for staging phone calls....hmmm.
Use up more of your 15 minutes...or 9 lives or whatever.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | November 20, 2005 at 12:23 PM
Man, this is getting good!
If Armitage is the source for Novak as well as Woodward, this is a huge setback for Fitzgerald. Did he have Armitage questioned by the FBI or testify before the grand jury? If only the former, Fitz has got some serious explaining to do. Add that to the fact that he sent the FBI to interview Wilson neighbors only days before the Libby indictment was announced and you have what looks like a pork barrel prosecution doomed to sink under the weight of its own emptiness.
Armitage was part of the State Department cabal at war with the Cheney cabal. He must have enjoyed the damage his silence - and the silence he imposed on his MSM contacts - did to the reputations of his old opponents, but karma might be coming around to bite him back Libby-style if he perjured himself.
The irony is, of course, that the man who refuses to release his identity publicly may be the first government official known to leak Plame's CIA affiliation.
Posted by: Terrie | November 20, 2005 at 12:57 PM
Wilson's call for an investigation of Woodward, rather than an investigation of Woodward's source is very curious. He must also have an inkling of who the source is and know it doesn't fit his story line.
Pure speculation here, but do you think this may also have to do with all the Hadley rumors? It is weird that Raw Story always goes to the WH and keep Hadley alive as a source even after he has denied it helps the Wilson camp.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 20, 2005 at 01:16 PM
TS. I don't read Raw Story very much, but it sounds like they have a lot credibility invested in him as a source and in the theory of Wilson as injured victim. At this point, I would expect the rest of the MSM (particularly those that might be called to testify under oath)to follow the Newsweek lead and look for a more benign theory for the leak.
Posted by: TP | November 20, 2005 at 02:00 PM
I'll bet Armitage can trace his knowledge of Wilson and Plame to unofficial sources outside of the intelligence community. How pissed is Fitz going to be at Joe?
Posted by: TP | November 20, 2005 at 02:09 PM
Thank you for the compliment. I hope when Tom does have a kid, he or she turns out as great as mine, who is a happy, handsome super-liberal law student with hopes of being a public defender if he can't be the next Eric Clapton.
Posted by: TalkLeft | November 20, 2005 at 02:43 PM
TP the word of the day today for the media is backstroke, backstroke from Wilson and his ex-CIA agent buddies. .and(except for the NYT) it has been for about 2 weeks..
Posted by: clarice | November 20, 2005 at 02:50 PM
I just watched today, both TM and Jeralyn were fantastic!
I am going to layoff the Hunk references so Mrs.TM does not bar him from continuing this!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | November 20, 2005 at 03:27 PM
It happens to them all!
First its virtual-mongol-horde barbarian, then on executive/bureaucrat/TV producer and editor. Ooooo, the transformation! So long! ;)
Posted by: JJ | November 20, 2005 at 05:48 PM
..on *to* executive/bureaucrat/TV producer and editor...
Or let it read: Don't turn in your spurs!
Posted by: JJ | November 20, 2005 at 06:53 PM
Thank you for the compliment. I hope when Tom does have a kid, he or she turns out as great as mine, who is a happy, handsome super-liberal law student with hopes of being a public defender if he can't be the next Eric Clapton.
de nada....so I guess Tom will have to produce a happy good looking conservative lawyer and when they are both Supremes the Force will be balanced.
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2005 at 12:25 PM
Got they Mojo wukkin' out theyah in the fields wheh the butter flies lay on blooms, miles spann the waters wheh ducks pawl the muddy dunn sam.
=================================================
Posted by: kim | November 25, 2005 at 10:18 AM
Do naldo.
==========
Posted by: kim | November 26, 2005 at 09:29 AM
You want barbar,
Don't go farfar.
==================
Posted by: kim | November 27, 2005 at 01:07 PM
cool coloration device
Posted by: size2u penis pills, patches and traction devices | September 21, 2006 at 07:13 AM
keep it up
Posted by: penis enlargement | September 21, 2006 at 07:38 AM
drunkin sailor early in the morning
Posted by: buy wine online | September 21, 2006 at 07:40 AM
nice site
Posted by: how to get a bigger penis | September 21, 2006 at 07:41 AM
keep it up
Posted by: penis enlargement | September 21, 2006 at 07:42 AM
lovely coloring and artistic design
Posted by: penis enhancement | September 21, 2006 at 07:45 AM