Michael Miner’s Hot Type column, “Robert Novak’s Not Talking,” November 26, was remarkable for its display of contempt for facts.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Miner of course is entitled to his opinion about Novak and his column. He might not be concerned about a CIA employee using her position and the agency to try to influence political debate, but if he opens his mind a little perhaps he can recognize that some people might see such a scenario in this case. Perhaps he can also understand that a journalist might try to find out what’s behind this story and that’s how Plame’s name came out. Now, Miner could rightly argue that we don’t know that such a scenario is true and won’t know the truth until Fitzgerald’s investigation is complete. Then again, Miner’s screed betrayed no let’s-get-all-the-facts, don’t-rush-to-judgment, evenhanded approach. He swallowed hook, line and sinker everything Joseph Wilson said. Yet just a little research would have found that the Senate intelligence committee caught Wilson in falsehoods time and again on the critical issues (“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” July 7, 2004, pages 39-47). Prominent among those falsehoods, Wilson lied when he denied his wife proposed him for the trip to Africa–that recommendation was a key point in Novak’s column. A clip search would have found that the Washington Post (“Plame’s Input Is Cited on Niger Mission; Report Disputes Wilson’s Claims on Trip, Wife’s Role,” July 10, 2004) reported that the Senate committee’s report “turns a harsh spotlight” on Wilson’s statements and that he had provided the paper “misleading information” about the Niger case. Much of this information is also available in our previous editorials that Miner never bothered to look up.
Not content to rant about Novak and the paper, Miner had to drag the McKevitt case into his column and outrageously declare that the Sun-Times is to blame for that ruling. Had he gone to the trouble to fact-check his assertion, he might have read Abdon Pallasch’s account of what happened, “Reporter’s right to protect sources in play,” October 9, 2003, Chicago Sun-Times. Pallasch wrote that his and Bob Herguth’s lawyers, “both staunch First Amendment supporters, told us they thought we should hand over the tapes. Because the court would not grant a stay, they would in all likelihood rule against us, creating a precedent that could be used against other journalists in these situations. Both attorneys were willing to represent us pro bono as long as it took, but by going forward, we would likely do more harm than good.” Unfortunately, Judge Posner indeed seized on the opening presented by this case to deliver the precedent Pallasch and his lawyers hoped to avoid. This is a story about two reporters writing a book and lawyers and judges going after their notes. The facts about what happened are straightforward, but Miner didn’t take the time to do basic research to get the facts.
