‘No consequences for misleading the public’

June 14, 2006

Whether [tag]Karl Rove[/tag]’s conduct in the [tag]Plame[/tag] scandal was literally criminal is open to some debate — or, in Patrick Fitzgerald’s office, perhaps not — but the fact that Rove intentionally misled the public and reporters is not.

To his credit, the Associated Press’ [tag]Pete Yost[/tag] is calling Rove on it publicly.

The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for [tag]misleading[/tag] the [tag]public[/tag].

In 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame’s [tag]CIA[/tag] identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.

It’s now known that Rove had discussed Plame’s CIA employment with conservative columnist Robert [tag]Novak[/tag], who exposed her identity less than a week later, citing two unidentified senior administration officials.

Rove’s truth-telling to the FBI saved him from indictment. And by [tag]misleading[/tag] reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign.

If it sounds like Yost is a little annoyed at the president’s top political aide, a) he is; and b) he should be. Political reporters rely on influential insiders like Rove all the time, and it’s a symbiotic relationship — sources want to get a message out and reporters want insights they can’t get anywhere else. The connection, however, is based on trust. Reporters have to remain skeptical, and realize when they’re being spun, but Rove misled these journalists and deceived to others (like Scott McClellan) so they’d mislead journalists.

And now reporters like Yost are left to lament the fact that “there often are no consequences for misleading the public.” He’s not the only one.

Post Script: By the way, the AP headline on Yost’s story read, “Analysis: Telling FBI the truth saved Rove.” That’s the opposite of Yost’s point and suggests to the reader that Rove was honest in this ordeal. It’s not Yost’s fault — writers don’t pick their own headlines — but the AP really should fix this.

Someone is surprised, after le affaire Solomon that Associated Press would put a pro-Administration spin wherever they could? These are the people who commissioned Solomon’s hit, let him fire again at will, defended him publicly, attacked his critics publically and privately, and then stuck the critics with a sharp stick in the eye by giving Solomon the award for “best story” over three actual real news stories.

AP: in the words of your favorite Vice President, “go fuck yourself.”

  • here’s a way to have consequences: stop reporting their bullshit. Start doing some journalism as opposed to stenography. Nail them when they lie, and call a lie a lie.

  • “n 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame’s CIA identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.”

    Actually if I recall, at this time he was still lying to the FBI. He only began to tell the truth when he and his attorney found out that the lie had been revealed by the reporter from Time magazine.

    I could of course be wrong on the sequence and timing of events.

  • Yes, someone who told the truth to the FBI does not go back 4 more times. One time, maybe, but not 4 more.

  • I really have a hard time trying to feel any sympathy for Peter Yost and the rest of the Washington press corps. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., have been lying to the press for five years now. Rather than approach the job with a healthy dose of skepticism, the press corps has regurgitated every single lie almost verbatim. When it hasn’t been trying to spread the bullshit thick, the administration has regularly shown the domestic press the back of its hand. The press just laps this treatment up.

    Here’s something: Where’s the genuine outrage from the press being lied to about the WMDs in Iraq? Surely the deaths of more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers, thousands more Iraqis and at a cost of the billions of dollars in an unnecessary war is more important than being burned by a source, right?

  • I hope Yost has another job lined up. The AP can’t tolerate that kind of honesty for long.

  • Maybe all bloggers should blog incessantly about Yost’s article and everything about it–maybe he can then win $500.

  • I’m curious what the quid-pro-quo was in Rove’s escape from Fitzgerald. The next Supreme Court appointment, maybe? No one, course, expects Bush to honor his promise to throw out of the White House anyone involved in the Plame leak now that Scotty and his weasel successor can no longer claim “ongoing investigation”.

  • I thought I had plumbed the depths of my cynicism, but, alas, I had not. Rove is not going to be indicted, and this is the new litmus test of wrong-doing in this case. At this moment, I can muster only disdain for the entire infestation that is my federal government and the enablers who “report” on its actors. Having highly-placed sources is more important than having truthful ones. The Bush administration plays these chump reporters like violins, and I am supposed to be impressed by any expression of indignation on the part of the instruments? Not a chance. I have no faith in anything about these guys other than the fact that the entire game is becoming part of the celebrity media and those of us who rely on them to report the facts are simply SOL.

  • Plame did the same thing in ‘Vanity Fair’ and it’s not like there were murders or coups and stuff.

    • Comments are closed.