Per the AP:
Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Armitage's official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.
What the fuck? Is the AP working to out Bob Woodward’s confidential source?? Is that ethical? The article even mentions that Woodward says his source waived confidentiality, yet still Woodward won’t reveal the name. And so the AP is now using FOIA’s to uncover who it is?? I thought that stuff was like the death of free speech or something. Or do they just assume that the government doesn’t read newspapers?
Then again, I don’t really know much about the facts, and it looks like the story could be suggesting that Woodward already told the government, but just won’t tell us. But that doesn’t really make sense, and you’d think they’d just come right out and say that. And if that’s the case, then it would seem the only reason he’s remained confidential is to hide him from us…the people who the media is supposed to serve.
Why do I keep getting the impression that it’s all a big game to them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Nah, this is perfectly ethical journalism. When one journalist holds confidential information, there is no similar confidentiality agreement or obligation on other journalists not to try to discover it.
But if this is perfectly ethical, then why the huge deal from the media when the government tries to uncover confidential sources, if the other media sources are free to do so? Again, do they just assume that the government doesn't read newspapers? Had Sy Hersh uncovered Judith Miller's sources on the Plame thing and reported about it, would that have been acceptable? It just sounds like a big game to me.
Post a Comment