[lit-ideas] Re: NYT in the news again
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:53:49 -0700
It wasn't some low-level staffer, such as Rice, who leaked this. This
comes from the very top: Bush, Cheney, Rove, & Libby. The NYT
published the news without identifying the source, and especially
without explaining what was happening (that this was a pre-emptive
leak to draw attention away).
I'm not clear how you know that it was not a low-level staffer who
actually passed on the tip. It surely didn't come from Bush, who
probably couldn't make the connection between dot A and dot B in order
to get the idea of 'outing' started. (Bush is proud that he never reads
newspapers, in any case.) You keep saying the NYT published the news
without identifying the source, even though they knew it. But you keep
not offering any verification of that, and simply repeat what you said
yesterday—that 'of course [they know it]. My guess would be it would be
Cheney/Rove, via a functionary, and shielded by 'plausible denial.'
Of course the NYT knows who leaked this. They don't print anonymous tips
from the phone. A senior NYT reporter is called by the White House. The
info is to be published as "an undisclosed source". The reporter runs it
by the editors. They discuss it. They print it.
They know who leaked it because they wouldn't print anonymous phone
tips. So far they haven't printed any 'tips.' What they did print was
that someone had leaked Plame's name, probably in response to Wilson's
op ed piece (in the Times), to Robert Novak. R-o-b-e-r-t N-o-v-a-k. At
that time he was working for CNN. I believe he still writes a syndicated
column. Then it came out that some Times reporter (later identified as
Miller) might have been given the same information. Not long after that,
at least a dozen or so newspeople, mostly around Washington, revealed
that they too had been contacted by sources which seemed to be traceable
to someone in the Administration, via intermediate links. Miller did not
break the story, nor did the Times. Novak was the one sought out,
immediately, and directly, because of his big name and neo-con
connections. In the Miller/Times hysteria, he has gone untouched.
It could conceivably have happened that a 'senior NYT reporter was
called by the White House, etc., but with this Administration and this
newspaper, it seems unlikely, _unless_ the first part of your conspiracy
theory is true; but as this is supposed to back up that theory, the
theory cannot back up it, except at a certain price.
And a story like this gets the total treatment. The NYT is under immense
scrutiny this week.
It's been under a fair amount of self-scrutiny, too, although not enough
to satisfy many bloggers and jealous columnists elsewhere. The Times has
really fucked up: about the Iraq run-up; about Miller's reliability,
etc. But I'll fly down there with a live fish if they're in cahoots with
You haven't yet let us know how Loper's article supports some of the
claims you made yesterday.
The latest news is that Miller is already discussing her severance
package and is talking with other newspapers.
That might now be old news lots of places. I don't usually enjoy Dowd's
columns, but her one on Miller was right on.
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: