BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Monday, December 06, 2004
THE BOB AND ED SHOW. CBS has
posted a three-minute clip of Ed Bradley's fine interview with Bob
Dylan, broadcast last night on 60 Minutes. Bradley properly
discloses that Dylan's book, Chronicles: Volume I, was
published by a corporate sibling, the Viacom-owned Simon &
Schuster - which, unfortunately, is just the way things are these
days. Anyway, if you missed it - and why, might I ask? - be sure at
least to catch these
highlights.
Here
is a reasonably complete account of the interview. But you really
need to see it. Dylan appears to be struggling mightily with his
legendary shyness; he also seems to want to come off as reasonably
normal, which is a struggle for him. Good stuff - a far better
addition to 60 Minutes than the pending arrival of Dan Rather,
that's for sure. I'd bounce Rather from the anchor chair at the
CBS Evening News right now, and let Zimmy fill in until a
replacement is ready.
The Phoenix's Jon Garelick
recently wrote
an insightful review of Chronicles.
THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS
SPEAKS. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who
outed
former undercover CIA operative Valerie
Plame, has not been
threatened with jail for refusing to reveal his source, while other
journalists more peripherally involved are facing prison - including
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who's never even
written about the case, but whose name apparently came up in
connection with the leak investigation.
This has led to at least some
speculation that Novak is in fact the subject of a criminal
investigation, and that that is the reason he hasn't been subpoenaed.
But Novak - who up until now has been completely silent on the matter
- partially addressed the issue during a talk last Wednesday in
Madison, Wisconsin.
According
to the Capital Times,
Novak said, "To the regret of many people, I am not a criminal
target." A student tried to get him to expand on that incomplete
answer, but Novak wouldn't bite. (Via Romenesko.)
Which leaves a puzzling question:
why is special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald going easy on
Novak, if that's what he's doing? Is it because Novak is an ally of
the White House? Or is it because Fitzgerald is saving Novak for
last?
FAILING TO DIG BIG.
Boston Globe ombudsman Christine Chinlund today
fails
to offer a clear answer in
the matter of two recent op-ed-page controversies involving the
leak-infested Big Dig. She writes that she wishes officials of
Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the project manager, had been willing
to rework their op-ed submission so that it could have been
published, but she doesn't specify what was wrong with it to begin
with. And she punts on the matter of whether former Mass Pike general
counsel Peter Pendergast's piece was so riddled with errors that it
never should have run in the first place.
Well, let me try to sort this
out.
1. Bechtel's
op-ed, published as a
full-page ad in the Herald after it was rejected by the Globe, was nothing more than a response
to the Globe's negative - and apparently entirely accurate -
reporting. According to Chinlund, the Globe offered to run the
op-ed as a letter. That would have been fine.
2. As for Pendergast's November 15
column, which was challenged
by three prominent people
(including former governor Jane Swift), Chinlund quotes
editorial-page editor Renée Loth as saying, "Many times
disputes of 'fact' are really about argument or point of view." But a
re-read of Pendergast's
column reveals that to be a
problematic response. He made very specific, factual assertions.
Op-ed-page co-editor Nick King
adds, "We don't have the resources to fact-check our op-ed pieces. We
carefully talk to the author. In this case, we had some back and
forth ... but there is an element of faith and trust. Especially with
writers who come from a background of expertise in the
area."
Granted, it's hard to vet outside contributions as thoroughly as they ought to be. But if Pendergast's column was as
off-base as his critics allege, then what was missing was basic
editing of the sort you would hope the paper would apply to all of
its pieces, whether they're written by staff columnists or outsiders.
posted at 8:30 AM |
3 comments
|
link
3 Comments:
Well, look, I'm not following the Novak thing that closely, so I may have missed something contradicting this, but: What's the chance that Novak has already, quietly, rolled over on his source? Given his high journalistic standards, I can see why people would be shocked that he wouldn't put up a public ethics-based stink over such a thing ... but isn't it possible he cooperated sans subpoena?
Novakula has no "journalistic standards" to speak of as far as I can tell, so it's unlikely that he's either mum or squealing like a stuck pig based on *those*. My guess is that he's either being protected by those on high (perhaps he has dirt?) or there's a real principle involved.
The principle could be that other journalists were contacted by the leaker, but didn't actually publish the Valerie Plame leak, so the leaker isn't a source for anything... just a criminal. That makes them fair game to subpoena -- they didn't publish, so the person who leaked isn't a source for an actual story, so protecting a source isn't a legal or even (maybe) an ethical issue.
Novak actually did write the story leaking Plame's identity and putting a CIA agent's and all of her contacts' lives in jeopardy, so his "source" (the actual leaker) is somewhat more protected. Maybe.
Anyway, we lack information to determine why... idle speculation is all that's possible until someone talks or gets a *useful* leak. In the meantime, you can read all about Novak's "journalism" at the Daily Howler.
I couldn't agree more with your take on Chinlund's latest piece. Indeed, I would submit that she demonstrates a chronic inability to call out her employer or colleagues -- no matter how egregious the offense. Her columns scream: I'm doing this, but I don't like it.
Put another way, she's no Don Wycliff. And while her lack of intestinal fortitude (I hope that's what it is, rather than a lack of insight) may mean she doesn't eat alone in the Globe cafeteria, it doesn't make for a better paper.
Post a Comment
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
