Comments on: PlameGate’s Disappearing Act http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/19/plamegates-disappearing-act/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: peter http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/19/plamegates-disappearing-act/comment-page-1/#comment-97013 peter Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:46:35 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/09/19/plamegates-disappearing-act/#comment-97013 This argument creates a straw man which doesn't exist. The fact is that the Armitage story received front page treatment in the Times (as Rieder notes), was the first report on Keith Olbermann, etc. There was no "dearth of coverage" or page C21 treatment. Also, the Armitage story and the Libby story are different. When a senior White House official is indicted for perjury, it should be front page news. Armitage was not indicted. What the two stories share in common is the revelation of Valerie Plame's identity. What makes them different is as significant as what they have in common. (For that matter, the fact that Armitage was the first leaker does not exonerate Libby. We don't know if Libby knew that Armitage spilled the beans, and both men leaked before the Novak piece was published. So both men did the same thing, albeit with apparently far different motives.) Moreover, when the Times screws up a story -- Jayson Blair being the obvious example -- it gets front page coverage. The implication that the Times and other media "got it wrong" about Libby is not a correct one. This argument creates a straw man which doesn’t exist. The fact is that the Armitage story received front page treatment in the Times (as Rieder notes), was the first report on Keith Olbermann, etc. There was no “dearth of coverage” or page C21 treatment.

Also, the Armitage story and the Libby story are different. When a senior White House official is indicted for perjury, it should be front page news. Armitage was not indicted. What the two stories share in common is the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity. What makes them different is as significant as what they have in common. (For that matter, the fact that Armitage was the first leaker does not exonerate Libby. We don’t know if Libby knew that Armitage spilled the beans, and both men leaked before the Novak piece was published. So both men did the same thing, albeit with apparently far different motives.)

Moreover, when the Times screws up a story — Jayson Blair being the obvious example — it gets front page coverage.

The implication that the Times and other media “got it wrong” about Libby is not a correct one.

]]> By: Fred http://informedspeculation.com/2006/09/19/plamegates-disappearing-act/comment-page-1/#comment-96979 Fred Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:07:01 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/09/19/plamegates-disappearing-act/#comment-96979 While it's true that when you are working on a story that may bring down a president, that's page one and above the fold. But when you have to admit you are only human and made a mistake, that's page C21. However, there is also something called journalistic integrity, which if the New York Times had any, would require it to print a dozen or so front page stories on how this all turned out. While it’s true that when you are working on a story that may bring down a president, that’s page one and above the fold. But when you have to admit you are only human and made a mistake, that’s page C21.

However, there is also something called journalistic integrity, which if the New York Times had any, would require it to print a dozen or so front page stories on how this all turned out.

]]>