Gary Van Winkle – 2/23/07

This page was last updated on February 24, 2007.

Journalistic ethics; Gary Van Winkle; Beaver County Times; February 23, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“The prosecution of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby is winding down now. Libby is involved in the investigation of the Valerie Plame case.

“Plame was a CIA employee, presumably engaged in some manner of sensitive activity.

“It is illegal to reveal the identities of intelligence agents employed in the service of the United States. And so Libby faces some stiff penalties should he be convicted of lying to the FBI about his involvement.”

[RWC] Mr. Van Winkle is wrong. It is illegal to reveal the identity of a covert agent, not merely “the identities of intelligence agents employed in the service of the United States.” As has been reported time and again, Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent at the time of the Novak column.

If Mrs. Wilson had been a covert agent, why was no one charged with leaking that fact? As we now know, and as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew when he began his investigation, Richard Armitage was Mr. Novak’s source.

“And now I quote, in part, Matt Apuzzo, writer for the Associated Press: ‘Plame was outed publicly by reporter Robert Novak who touched off an FBI investigation with a July 2003 syndicated column.’

“I want to stress that I’ve always held Novak in high regard as a reporter and commentator, even when I disagreed with his views.”

[RWC] Forgive me if I’m skeptical about this comment.

“But in this case, I have to ask whether he engaged his judgment before activating his word processor.

“It seems to me that he compounded the felony by publicizing the information. The content of the story is illegal information.

[RWC] Once again, Mr. Van Winkle is wrong. As has been reported, Mr. Novak contacted the CIA press office before he published his column. Not only did the CIA not object to Mr. Novak’s column, it even confirmed Mrs. Wilson (a.k.a. Valerie Plame) worked for the agency. Go here for more info on this topic. Did Mr. Van Winkle intentionally omit this information, or was he truly ignorant of it?

“To leak it to the press is a felony in itself. To leak it to the public at large is just as felonious.”

[RWC] Mr. Van Winkle is wrong for at least the third time. Not only must the agent be covert, the person leaking the information must be aware of the agent’s covert status and must be a government employee entrusted with keeping that status secret.

“We know that newsfolk are always in search of that elusive Pulitzer. But when we see a case of half-cocked reporting, it’s time to blow the whistle.

“It’s one thing to report a roadside bombing. It’s something quite different to report the details of constructing such a bomb.

“We wail about government ethics, or the lack thereof. What about journalistic ethics? Why can’t people understand there’s a time to keep their mouths shut?”

[RWC] Hmm, did you notice Mr. Van Winkle never wrote a letter complaining about the leaks concerning our programs to spy on suspected terrorists? Instead, he wrote a letter about a non-leak.