The scuffle over whether “senior administration officials” in Washington outed a covert CIA employee to columnist Robert Novak has some readers wondering how the journalist-leaker relationship works.
Appearances may suggest that snagging coverage on leak-drenched Capitol Hill is simple: Plop juicy secrets in front of writers and then hide in anonymity while press corps piranhas rip into things.
But leakers, whether in Washington or locally, typically face a buzz saw of journalists’ questions, skepticism and demands for documentation.
Several Star-Telegram managing editors offered examples.
I asked them how they would have handled tips that Valerie Plame, wife of retired diplomat and Bush administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, was a CIA agent with questionable ties to inquiries into whether Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
I also asked the editors whether they would have published Plame’s name, as Novak did in a July 14 column (not carried in this paper), and whether they would give the leakers’ names to federal investigators who are looking for possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Each managing editor’s priorities included ethical management of the information and a grasp of the leakers’ motive.
“I believe every journalist must consider the motives of people who provide us with information and not simply rush a story because we got something that was a secret or because someone else might print it,” said Lois Norder, managing editor over the Star-Telegram’s investigative team.
“A separate issue is whether identifying the agent jeopardized her safety,” Norder said. “I’d frame the questions this way as an editor: What are the reasons for identifying her? Is it essential to the story point to know her identification?
“Have we talked to her, her husband or others to let them know we plan to identify her, so they have the opportunity to make the argument against doing so? We need to hear that argument before deciding what’s the right thing to do. There’s no automatic right decision.”
Larry Lutz, editor of the Northeast Tarrant and Arlington editions of the Star-Telegram, said he would have used “the same standards as I would for verifying a tip from inside City Hall or the high school tennis team or whatever:
“How reliable is the source and why can’t they be identified? Does that outweigh the value and impact of the information? Do I understand the sources’ motive? Can I come back to this source for on-the-record affirmation or comment if I get the info on the record elsewhere?
“Can I get [the information] independently elsewhere and verified on the record? What does the person named say? Deny? No comment? Confirm? Is this information generally known or assumed without this tip?
“If I had success working through these issues, yes, I would have published the story. As a story, not a column.”
Managing Editor Kathy Vetter, who oversees Page One centerpieces and other projects, added: “If the CIA had made it clear that publication of [Plame's] name would have endangered her life, or her contacts, I would not have published the name.
“However, if there was powerful evidence that her relationship with former Ambassador Wilson might have affected his view on [possible] uranium cakes in Africa, I would have tried to do everything I could to establish that relationship without naming her.”
As a rule, we do not identify undercover authorities. It would be unconscionable to expose them to reprisal or otherwise destroy their careers.
But never say never, we’re taught.
Although Novak and others say that Plame’s covert role was well-known before she was outed and that she faced no danger, a decision to identify her could not have been swayed here except by compelling evidence that the public good would be served.
There was no such value in the Plame case if the predominant thinking is true — that the leakers unmasked Wilson’s wife as punishment for his criticism of the administration. What a lame and reckless reason to jeopardize CIA operations.
Meanwhile, if we had promised to guard the leakers’ anonymity, we would not give their names to the Justice Department, the editors said.
That’s ethical management — and a show of respect for leaks as an essential part of covering government. Too often, only a leak can expose big problems.
