Fox News Contributor Karl Rove Becomes The Story

This coming Sunday 60 Minutes will broadcast a report on Alabama’s former governor Don Siegleman. Siegleman is presently serving a seven year jail term for a bribery conviction that is considered suspicious by Democrats and Republicans alike. Many believe that the case was politically engineered by some familiar names in the Dirty Tricks business:

“A Republican operative in Alabama says Karl Rove asked her to try to prove the state’s Democratic governor was unfaithful to his wife in an effort to thwart the highly successful politician’s re-election.”

While the ethical underhandedness of a manufactured prosecution that lands an innocent man in prison is disgusting on its own, there are other questions raised that will likely not be answered by this scandal’s principal player. Karl Rove, Fox News’ newest contributor, has refused requests by 60 Minutes to comment, but he will continue to appear as an election analyst on the Fox News Channel.

What I want to know is: How can this guy appear on Fox air, with reporters questioning him about the presidential campaign, without being made to answer questions about the political controversies swirling around his own life? How can Fox anchors sit next to him, pretending these issues don’t exist, and still be called journalists? Yeah, I know…no one calls them journalists now, but this would be like hiring O.J. Simpson as a crime reporter without ever mentioning Nicole and Ron.

I probably shouldn’t be giving Fox any ideas. After all…

Karl Rove & OJ Simpson…it was the Murdoch- owned ReganBooks that published Simpson’s “If I Did It” and tried to air a shlockumentary based on it on Fox, before they were shamed into ditching the program. Judith Regan was subsequently fired as a sacrifice to protect Murdoch and others who had greenlighted the projects.

Fox News Hiring Karl Rove?

In a classic case of role reversal, Fox News is reportedly hiring George Bush’s former brain, Karl Rove. This completes the circular path from Rove’s previous position where he was the one employing Fox News to broadcast the Bush administration’s propaganda.

As a contributer to the network, Rove will be familiar with the process of news gathering and source management. He was previously a contributer to the New York Times’ Judith Miller, to whom he supplied classified data on Valerie Plame. Prior to Rove’s “contribution” Plame was a covert intelligence operative working to uncover Iran’s WMD program. Perhaps Fox could also snag Rove’s former partner Scooter Libby and pair them on their own show?

Rove’s new association with Fox is expanding his media reach on the heels of his recent engagement with Newsweek. He also closed a book deal last month with a reported $1.5 million advance.

Look out, Oprah. A new multimedia tycoon is grasping for your crown.

FreePress.net Stumbles On Shield Law For Plame Leakers


media is the issue: www.freepress.net

FreePress.net has begun a new campaign to promote the passage of a Federal Shield Law for reporters and are making Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper their poster children. The folks at FreePress are amongst the biggest heroes of the media reform movement. The criticism that follows should not be construed as a call to withhold support from them. But, in my opinion, they are off-track on this matter.

There is a distinction between bona fide whistleblowing and conspiring with individuals or agencies in government to pursue a political vendetta against their enemies.

All the facts are not in yet, but I don’t believe that the reporter’s privilege applies if, for instance, Karl Rove called Judith Miller and recruited her to plant a story for the purpose of punishing Amb. Joe Wilson for criticising the administration.

There is nothing even remotely resembling a whistleblower case here. A whistleblower seeks to disclose information of wrongdoing that the government or others want to keep secret at the public’s expense. Valerie Plame was not engaged in wrongdoing and the disclosure of her identity was not in the public’s interest. It was political payback and the reporters involved are acting as co-conspirators, not journalists.

I support a Federal Shield Law for reporters, but by citing the Miller/Cooper case they are infecting the argument with the illegitimacy of their claims. Reporters do need to be able to protect their sources without fear of legal consequences when engaged in the conduct of their profession as journalists, but not when they are acting on behalf of government hitmen and promoting propaganda. That’s not protecting your sources, that’s protecting your accomplices.

Update: There are reports swirling that Karl Rove was, indeed, Matt Cooper’s source. Despite the White House’s protestations to the contrary, It appears that Rove was planting the Plame story. He has denied having done so, but now his denials are getting murkier. He may still weasel out of this because it is not illegal to disclose the identity of a covert agent if you didn’t know she was covert. It might be difficult to prove what Rove knew when he outted Plame. But he may still have some legal headaches. If he told Special Counsel Fitzgerald, or the grand jury, that he was not the source, he may be facing a perjury charge.

We can dream can’t we?