Fox News reveals unnamed source (Identifies Clarke)

[BlueState]

By David Folkenflik
Sun Staff
Originally published March 25, 2004

Fox News Channel created a stir yesterday by broadcasting past remarks by a leading critic of the Bush administration that seemed to support the president's anti-terror efforts - although the comments were originally made on condition that their speaker not be identified

<snip>

But the comments were considered "on background," an arrangement frequently used by the press. In "background" conversations, a source provides information to reporters on the condition that it not be directly attributed to him. At the time, Clarke's bosses at the National Security Council insisted that his quotes be attributed only to an unnamed counter-terrorism official, Angle said yesterday.

How in God's name they can claim to be a "Fair and Balanced" news organization, while abandoning any semblance of journalistic ethics to shill for a candidate, is beyond me.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bal-to.fox25mar25,0,2667376.story?coll=bal-features-headlines

[Eric J in MN]

1. It's the source who is supposed to decide whether to stay anononymous, not

It's the source who is supposed to decide whether to stay anononymous, not the organization the source was working for at the time.

[sadiesworld]

2. As someone pointed out on a thread yesterday...

presumably Bushco could release Novak, et al, from his obligation not to divulge the "senior WH official" who outed Valerie Plame. Something for next week (?) when Wilson's book is released.
:evilgrin:

[pinkpops]

3. I just emailed Robert Novak

"I think you could probably get permission to reveal the name of your Valerie Plume source from the White House now, since they have given permission to Fox in the case of Richard Clarke. Why don't you just ask them?"
Here's his email address:

[e-mail] <[e-mail]>

[teryang]

4. A strawman to set limits for acceptable dialogue

As pointed out on the other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x9913

Timing of the books publication was wholly in control of the white house. It was timed to coincide with the 911 inquiry hearings.

The hearings are being conducted by people who are just as unacceptable as Henry Kissinger, burdened with huge conflicts of interest because of ties to tainted Saudi interests, the oil industry, and the NSC. If it weren't for the Clarke book, the hearings would have nothing to offer except whitewash and inquiries would go on ad infinitum into the future. Clarke gives the impression of a real controversy while not straying far from the official version of 911.

Every member of this administration is looking at the prospect of subpoenae from inquiries, commissions, and congressionals concerning 911 for the rest of their lives. Clarke is the plan to avoid that.

[Skittles]

5. they have a stupid audience

that's how they can claim to be "fair and balanced"

[pacifictiger]

6. the proveberial

FOX is taking care of the chicken house.