Back Where We Started From On Anonymous Sources
The man who helped make “anonymous sources” famous appears to now be smack dab in the middle of the investigation that is helping make the phrase infamous. Revelations this morning that Bob Woodward testified under oath in the Valerie Plame investigation have taken it to a strange new level. We have no idea what real impact Woodward’s testimony might have on prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation, or the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby. But it does crack open the door a little further to some of the Byzantine rules reporters and their sources can concoct.
The Washington Post story recounting the testimony says Woodward testified that “a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.” Woodward says he testified because he had been released by the source to testify – but not to discuss the official’s name publicly.
In a statement, Woodward says he discussed “portions of interviews” he conducted with three separate administration officials. “All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify,” Woodward says. We’ve come a long way from the days of flower pots on the patio and clandestine meetings in a parking garage.
Whatever differences Woodward’s testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. On the heels of Judith Miller’s “entanglements” with Libby, consumers of news are justified in asking tough questions of those who purport to be seeking the truth. Former CBS correspondent Eric Engberg last week divulged to us some of his “sources,” indicating the absurdity of the practice at times. But it is clear there can be real consequences attached when you read some of Miller’s pre-war stories.
Don’t think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in The New York Times this morning are that Libby’s defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters. Of course, the Times story is based on “people involved in the case” and quotes “a lawyer close to the defense who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
We look to be heading for more showdowns on anonymous sourcing. Who knows, perhaps Woodward can re-write the rules of journalism once again.
Update: A lot has happened since this morning. First, Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee defended Woodward, saying "He doesn't have to disclose every goddamn thing he knows." Later in the day, Woodward apologized to the newspaper. Then, Post Editor Leonard Downie Jr. gently rebuked the Watergate star, saying, "I told him I want better communication on what he's working on, and he agreed to that." Surely more on this tomorrow.
The Washington Post story recounting the testimony says Woodward testified that “a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency nearly a month before her identity was disclosed.” Woodward says he testified because he had been released by the source to testify – but not to discuss the official’s name publicly.
In a statement, Woodward says he discussed “portions of interviews” he conducted with three separate administration officials. “All three persons provided written statements waiving the previous agreements of confidentiality on the issues being investigated by Fitzgerald. Each confirmed those releases verbally this month, and requested that I testify,” Woodward says. We’ve come a long way from the days of flower pots on the patio and clandestine meetings in a parking garage.
Whatever differences Woodward’s testimony may make in the Plame investigation, it is further evidence of something gone terribly wrong with how reporters treat their sources. On the heels of Judith Miller’s “entanglements” with Libby, consumers of news are justified in asking tough questions of those who purport to be seeking the truth. Former CBS correspondent Eric Engberg last week divulged to us some of his “sources,” indicating the absurdity of the practice at times. But it is clear there can be real consequences attached when you read some of Miller’s pre-war stories.
Don’t think the discussion over sourcing will end anytime soon. Indications in The New York Times this morning are that Libby’s defense team will seek testimony from journalists, including some not named in the indictment, and may want information that goes beyond agreements made between reporters and prosecutors. That could mean more battles ahead for reporters. Of course, the Times story is based on “people involved in the case” and quotes “a lawyer close to the defense who spoke on condition of anonymity.”
We look to be heading for more showdowns on anonymous sourcing. Who knows, perhaps Woodward can re-write the rules of journalism once again.
Update: A lot has happened since this morning. First, Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee defended Woodward, saying "He doesn't have to disclose every goddamn thing he knows." Later in the day, Woodward apologized to the newspaper. Then, Post Editor Leonard Downie Jr. gently rebuked the Watergate star, saying, "I told him I want better communication on what he's working on, and he agreed to that." Surely more on this tomorrow.
