Reply #6: treason ought to trump all [View All]

I'd guess this reporter was on the margins and a Scooter pal. I don't recall the name on the shop around--it was somebody else at WaPo, wasn't it?

What exactly is the popular press read of the agreement that is made when they go "on background"? There was some (blog?) meme recently which made sense, more about Condi I think. That when your admin. on-background source turns out to be feeding you a bunch of politically self-serving shit that is later proved fabricated, that sure as hell should pierce the identity shield. The agreement is a vehicle to offer your readers inside information--a scoop of a sanctioned leak, which for one degree of policy subtlety, the admin. doesn't want to be "on record" saying. The historical enforcement mechanism is now somehow gone with reporters being happy happy admin. stenographers: if the information is bogus, the leaker should be exposed. For the good of the readers/viewers and the integrity of the media outlet.

That's getting off Plame a bit, but there is a ballpark relationship here. If somebody is making the rounds with highly partisan (and in this case, ask me, treasonous) information--which is so out-there that only a scumbag like Novak lacks the integrity and sense to say no and not run it--didn't whichever media just get a story? Why not run it? The admin. said: here's something illegal, hardball and nasty we want to get around. Ethics correctly prevented most media from saying "Plame" but it shouldn't prevent them from saying "no deal on 'on-background,' you just gave me a story."

Somehow this admin. has stretched on-background to include almost everything they do, and there is no consequence, no defacto contract with the press. The justification you hear is access, which is bull for major media. The WH can't just stop talking to major media (or even needing to make PR deals with them)--it's a strawman.

Of course, the media are also to blame--you need the balls to enforce the contract. Someone should testify who got the Plame info--maybe it will make their ass grass in Wash., but it can fix the contract and someone else will take their place. It's a more important principle, giving teeth to the public watchdog than shielding what I think you rightly postulate is a source not worthy of protection.