Reason.com
New at Reason
Matt Welch explains the connection between the secrets of Deep Throat and swallowing Weapons of Mass Destruction claims.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.15.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Oh, this ought to be a fun debate.
Dave W.|12.15.05 @ 2:23PM|#
The media: mixed record on helping the executive branch keep secrets.
The courts: awesome (relatively speaking) record on forcing the executive to disclose secrets (then & now).
Matt, I think you are dwelling on the negative and missing the real heroes here. Go judicial branch! Your transparency is a rare thing and we luv it.
Matt Welch|12.15.05 @ 2:23PM|#
I would like to point out that this was written *before* the recent Woodward revelations, which is why it seems to ... *lack* certain informations.
|12.15.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Once upon a time, Matt Welch had to explain to me, very slowly, and over the course of multiple comments, that a legitimate distinction could be drawn between the reporters who broke the Balco/steroids story, and other investigative reporters. I had accused him of making up his mind only because he disliked the politics behind the steroid story and like the politics behind the other investigative report.
He patiently pointed out to me that, no, there was a legitimate distinction: the Balco reporters were being leaked grand jury information by the prosecutor - they weren't snooping and doing real reporting, but were just acting as publicity agents, in cooperation with the government. So I had to take my accusation back, and admit that there was a real distinction.
But now, at the end of this piece, he tells us that no legitimate distinction can be drawn between the Watergate story and Judy Miller's WMD nonsense?
How about this, Matt - Judy Miller was doing exactly what you attacked the reporters on the steroid-case story for doing: carrying water for the government, and acting as the PR agent for one of their crusades?
|12.15.05 @ 2:25PM|#
The first difference written about seems rather large to me - Woodward wrote about Watergate, Miller went to jail to not disclose the information she had.
Also, I think of import, is that Miller really got some crucial information very, very wrong. It was not just picking the losing side, but picking a side and relaying their lies as truth that got her in trouble.
With all that ,I am in general agreement that Woodward's methods are suspect, and more so lately, that there is something rotten in journalmalism-land.
The trust us, I talked to very important people secretly school of journalism is proving a loser.
Warren|12.15.05 @ 2:36PM|#
I would like to point out that this was written *before* the recent Woodward revelations, which is why it seems to ... *lack* certain informations.
Yeah well, that would seem IOTTMCO (Google people) to me. So, since (not so) recent developments have completely altered the terrain, how about an addendum? How do you think Woodward's involvement impacts (pthpthpth) on your thesis?
|12.15.05 @ 3:49PM|#
IOTTMCO (Google people)
If the abbreviation is so unfamiliar that you feel the need to head off questions about it, but you couldn't be bothered to explain it or simply type it out, why should we?
|12.15.05 @ 4:49PM|#
> Miller has an abrasive, defensive, and
> extravagantly self-regarding personality shared
> by many investigative journalists, particularly
> those not totally secure with themselves...
Must readers concern themselves with the interior psychokarmic nuance of a journalist's social development to this degree? Can't we simply say someone's full of shit, or maybe just stop at "abrasive"?
|12.15.05 @ 4:52PM|#
Now Eric, it's like those people who read "It Pays to Enrich Your Word Power" every day and then show off their new vocabulary (often to humorous effect).
|12.15.05 @ 4:54PM|#
> you couldn't be bothered to explain it or
> simply type it out, why should we?
You're right, Eric. I did google it... What we got here is meta-condecension.
Blog comments are the bold new dawn of fashionable savvy! Shoot your cuffs, straighten your tie.
|12.15.05 @ 5:08PM|#
between the secrets of Deep Throat and swallowing Weapons of Mass Destruction claims.
I have a very bad visual in my head right now. Thanks alot.
|12.16.05 @ 1:43AM|#
IOTTMCO (Google people)
That is one of the most un-intuitive acronyms I've seen.
Matt Welch|12.16.05 @ 6:57AM|#
Sorry kids, I was on European time and unable to respond very well.
Dave -- I'll sign on to "comparatively speaking," and only when compared to the typical Executive Branch....
Joe -- I don't think I said that "no legitimate distinction can be drawn between the Watergate story and Judy Miller's WMD nonsense"; as theCoach notes, that first difference is not trivial. My point was more about their *processes* of reporting, which is similar in many ways, and similarly prone to the refracting the agendas of their favored sources (while also being very useful at times in obtaining first-hand information from top officials).
As for the steroid stuff, there was some similarity with her WMD reporting, sure, though she (I think) did a bit more than simply receive a single targeted leak. The Plame stuff was obviously different, since she didn't actually publish anything.
theCoach -- Good points, all.
Warren -- I think the subsequent Woodwardia rather supports my overall point of the two being quite similar, especially at this stage in their careers. (There was a pretty interesting analysis -- by Joan Didion? -- linked to over at Jay Rosen's Pressthink, in which she argued that his whole M.O. changed radically *after* Watergate, basically from Outsider to Insider. I don't know how much that's true, especially considering the conspiracy/Navy Intelligence thing, which I enjoy sort of believing, but as an overall career-arc point I think it's valid.)
Crid -- Unfortunately, the answer to your first question is "yes." At least if you want to get closer to the truth than what the reporter left you with. That's the classic problem with anonymous sourcing -- unless the reporter tells you, you don't know the motivations of the source, and so therefore you have to look at the motivations or social/professional M.O. of the reporter.
|12.16.05 @ 9:01AM|#
Wait a g-d minute here.
"My point was more about their *processes* of reporting, which is similar in many ways, and similarly prone to the refracting the agendas of their favored sources (while also being very useful at times in obtaining first-hand information from top officials)."
In the 70s, Woodward was receiving leaks from a dissident within the government who was concerned about the criminal activity happening at the highest levels. Collecting and reporting his information put him in direct conflict with the most powerful people in govenrment, who did everything they could to stifle his efforts.
In the 00s, Miller was receiving "leaks" (are the really leaks when those being leaked about actively support the dissemination of the information?) from the people in the White House, as part of the White House's efforts to further their agenda. She was a cooperative accomplice for the people at the highest levels of government, who helped her in every way they could. Like the Balco reporters.
There's a more important distinction here than you're letting on, Matt - one that goes not just to how the reporters in question got their information, but to their relationship to a corrupt campaign carried out in the Oval Office - Woodward stumbled upon one and broke the story, fighting the government all the way as they tried to sqash it. Miller was handed the story by the White House, and worked with them to further their corrupt campaign.
You seemed to think this distinction was pretty important when you were writing about the "investigative journalists" who broke the steroids story.
|12.16.05 @ 9:30AM|#
...and if I could get the search feature to work, I'd be able to bring up the thread I'm referring to.
Apparently, H & R and never posted anything containing "Matt Welch Grand Jury Steroids."
|12.16.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Joe,
Is this the thread you're looking for?
|12.18.05 @ 9:57AM|#
Yes, thank you Twba!
Here's the money quote from Welch: "joe --On the contrary, I'm drawing two distinctions: between "persistent digging" and being on the receiving end of Grand Jury leaks; and between uncovering government abuse & abetting it."