The Fallout of (Mary) McCarthyism
The Post's Dana Priest, you might recall, won a Pulitzer Prize for its story on the prisons, which US government officials have said damaged relationships between US and foreign intelligence agencies. The question now for the newspaper is to what degree to support McCarthy. The Post's David Broder articulated his understanding of the paper's position on yesterday's Meet The Press:
Well, I think the view that my paper has is that it's the government's responsibility to keep the government secrets secret. And the internal discipline that they have applied is basically their business.That may seem a little harsh, because the Post clearly benefited from McCarthy's willingness to leak; now that she's been found out, the Post runs the risk of being seen as leaving her out to dry. Doing something on her behalf, however, would cause its own problems: If the Post were to provide her legal defense or financial support, it could justifiably be accused of an improper relationship with its source. McCarthy did know the risks of her decision to leak, after all. It's just somewhat troubling that while the Post basks in the glow of its Pulitzer, she's suffering the consequences.I have to say that using lie detectors on government employees is a pretty extreme measure. I remember when George Schultz was secretary of state, and somebody proposed that they use lie detectors on him, and he said, "I'm out of here if you want to do that." But I have to say, as journalists, we have to let the government deal with its internal processes themselves.
Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. did voice qualified support for McCarthy. He said people who provide information people need to hold the government accountable should not "come to harm for that." He added: "We don't know the details of why (the CIA employee) was fired, so I can't comment on that. But as a general principle, obviously I am opposed to criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press."