It’s discouraging that a journalist can out a CIA operative and still have a career. But that seems to be the case with Robert Novak. In fact, it was his cussing on air that finally prompted CNN to take him off the air — not his involvement in the Valerie Plame case. Now Fox News has hired Novak as a contributor. The fact that he is still considered employable by the major cable networks does not speak well of their journalistic standards.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
21 Comments
Fox’s journalistic standards. That’s an oxymoron like “compassionate conservative.”
Do I have to say that she wasn’t in the field for over five years, had a desk job, was not assigned to a covert operation, had married an ambassador, etc, etc, etc?
I mean, wasn’t she already “out”? Further, since people were going to wonder how Joe Wilson, a critic and expressed opposition to the administration, was selected for the job, does it not seem reasonable to believe that, once JOe started talking, her position and any sense of “covertness” whatever that may have been, was going to be over and it was a calculated or expected risk?
and, if we’re going to get all bent out about that, can it not be said that every leak about CIA operations from CIA internal agents poses a greater danger to our over seas operatives? A greater danger to national security interests where they can effectively shut down an operation without going through approved channels by picking up the phone and calling Dana Priest?
To me, the matter is not so much partisan in determination, but does in fact lead me to question who’s in charge of the CIA, do they make their own rules, do they get to make our national security decisions and doesn’t this pose a threat to all future administrations who may or may not be “in sinc” with any section of the CIA?
off topic.I know it’s the wrong Novak, but did anyone hear about Viveca Novak’s husband being nominated for a position with the FEC?
Wow! How many times has a politican ousted a CIA Operative. John Kerry did on the floor of the Senate. He recieved no attention for it.
You Bush-boot licks don’t seem to get it, if Plame WASN’T undercover, then Rove and Hadley and Libby and Cheney et al. WOULDN’T HAVE TO LIE about outing her, would they?
If she wasn’t covert, all the targets of the investigation would have to say is “she wasn’t covert.”
But they didn’t say that, did they? They said, “we had no conversations with journalists about Valerie Plame” which a lot of evidence is showing to be a lie (pending trial, of course).
And lying under oath in a criminal investigation is perjury–the same thing the right-wing went ballistic about when Clinton was accused of doing it.
If they didn’t commit a crime as you say, why did they apparently LIE ABOUT IT?
C’mon, check Rush’s website–he must have an answer for you . . .
BTW, Novak was apparently squeezed out at CNN because they didn’t like his involvement in this “ongoing investigation.”
Lucky for us viewers, journalistic ethics is nothing that troubles FAUX News . . .
BTW, Kat-in-misery, the CIA itself asked Justice to investigate the case, so they apparently thought she was covert.
But never mind, you Limbaugh-lovers know more about what constitutes “covert” than the CIA itself . . .
Wilson was chosen to go because he had been ambassador to some countries in the region, and a long-time diplomat with prior experience in investigating nuclear stockpile issues.
Galahad, per the attached regarding a UCLA study (nice liberal school, right?) it appears that Fox news may actually be the most “fair and balanced” of the major media outlets.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
It is amusing to read your “Limbaugh-lover” tact. As if you aren’t spouting every tired old liberal line in the book.
Outlander,Great article. Thanks.
In re-reading, I think that I mistated the conclusion in regard to Fox News. They were right of center, as far as ABC and NBC News were left of center.
However, the bottom line conclusion was that almost all of the major media tilted considerably left. I’m not surprised, are you?
According to the article PBS NewsHour was balanced. To me that comes as absolutely no surprise.
Traitor Novak will fit in very well at FAUX
Hmmm . . . that WAS an interesting article, Outlander, thanks for linking to it.
A couple of things come to mind after reading it over quickly. For starters, the author of the study used MEMBERS OF CONGRESS to represent the overall liberalness/conservatism of the American public.
As a liberal, this is patently ridiculous. Members of Congress are much more conservative–even the “liberal” ones–than the American public is.
Exhibit A, the study cites Joe LIEberman as a liberal. To me, this guy is one small step up from Zell Miller. Lieberman continually talks about “staying the course” in Iraq, for instance, when 78 percent of Democrats polled want to get out now.
He doesn’t represent people in his own party.
As far as PBS being “centrist,” I disagree. PBS runs programs like “NOW” and “In the Life” (gay life) that are blatantly liberal compared with anything on the networks or cable.
So I think if you ignore all the editoral comment–as the study did–and you use Congress as your starting point for “average,” you can make the media appear a lot more “liberal” than it is, while ignoring the really liberal slant of a lot of PBS programming.
As interesting as that little diversion was, no one has answered the question–why do members of the Bush administration have to LIE if they committed no crime in outing Plame?
Why did Bush say he’d fire anyone involved if her status were common knowledge? (Nevermind that Bush since retracted his promise . . . no surprise there.)
Maybe he could come to the Eagle and spin and lie. He’d fit right in. Ya know, telling things the way he wants them, but not as they are.
Okay, nice ad-homenim, Marty. You and the Swift Boat guys.
Now how about providing some evidence to back up that mouth . . .
Yup, nothing from Marty. Typical.
Novak spinning and lying. That is why he will do so well at FAUX.
Galahad, you useless toad:Granted he is a pretty poor republican. He just didn’t feel at home with the asolute idiots they put him up against.
Codie–did your teachers ever explain to you about “pronoun reference?”
Who the hell is “he?”
And you might also try to recall your classes in composition and speech in which you got some exposure to the concept of “argumentation.”
You have to actually provide “arguments” before you can have “argumentation.”
Calling people toads and traitors might work among the redneck republicans you hang out with, but it doesn’t cut it here.
Codie wrote: “When Galahad starts the insults you know you have won.”
Looks like I WON, eh, Codie?
Journalistic standards?! Yet another story came out yesterday, this one about the LA Times running a bogus story on PAGE 1. And where to begin with Katrina coverage? And you complain about Novak’s employability because of what…?