Does Robert Novak have an agenda or just the super sized ego of a reporter past his prime? I'm not sure, but it seems to me he is skirting dangerous territory with innuendo. 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.
2 comments:
The trouble with it... as we have seen on the local as well as the national... is all they have to do is say it, not prove it. When you put doubts in others minds, it is almost as good as the real deal. And even if later it is proved that it is not true... the damage is already done.
"ethics" linked with "journalism", is the quintessential oxymoron.
Post a Comment