His prints are all over a recent article in which he had this to say, "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."
Why would this even be brought forward without the actual information and substantiation of it? To raise red flags about Mr. Obama? Perhaps. What else is one to think?
I have no respect for reporters who operate in this manner. I see him often, guesting with the talking heads, seemingly immune from criticism. He sat smugly for months during the Valerie Plame affair. Who leaked her name - to him? Remember? It finally took down Scooter Libby. Yet it was Novak who put her name in print and I quote, "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction..."
Knowing that information and putting it into print was unconscionable. Yet he did. With no consequence to himself.
Mr. Obama's reaction to the rumor about the Clinton camp was a stern warning about "swift boating". The warning should be heeded, but a closer scrutiny of the source may be called for.
If this is the standard of journalistic ethics today, we have little information we can trust. We lose.