I'm trying to think if there is anyone in the country (or world) that this would surprise. Wow, I'm so shocked, our government is run by lying sleazebags.

I was just reading an interesting section of a book on Vietnam that was arguing the skills it *takes* to get into office are those of a politician. Weaseling, end-running, deception, back-stabbing, double-dealing. And no one will really care or be surprised at it. But the skills of a politician are NOT the skills of a statesman, who has to operate with the assumption of accountability.

-----------------
Liz Henry
lizzard@bookmaniac.net
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com

far be it from me to defend the guy, but Bush--by executive order--authorized the leaking information from the National Intelligence document. It's not principally right--nor even ethically--but as President of the United States, it's his legal right to do so. Matter of fact--the WH GC could find ths even libelous, expect for the first three hours that the story broke, everyone else was saying the same thing. Regardless, you should rewrite this headline. The longer you leave it up, the longer you inadvertantly implicate yourself.

Then, pass me the bucket.

I'll point to the words "reports" and "claiming." Those were the reports and that is what they were claiming. I did not say the President authorized a leak. I did not say the President did anything. I said "reports claim."

I appreciate you concern, but I see nothing libelous or inaccurate here.

I suppose it's also within my right to say "Reports surface claiming Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are taking a spaceship to Mars" if that is, in fact, what someone is reporting but unless I then research the accuracy of the Smoking Gun, the New York Sun, Firedoglake, Think Progress, Wonkette, etc....you see where I'm going here?

In a breaking news situation the story always changes. If everyone went back and rewrote every headline that changed in every breaking news situation...well, we'd all still be rewriting.

Journalism 101-in the time frame this was posted, in the context in which this was posted, I stand by my headline.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

...and as I think about this a bit more...I'm also a little confused by the claim the headline is inaccurate.

IF it was a "legal" leak, does that mean it should not be called a leak? I mean...he still authorized the leak...Legally, apparently. Right??? So reports surface claiming pres. authorized a leak should have a tag that says "and it was legal?" Or should it say the President, well within his powers, authorized a leak? I'm just confused.

And where would the libel be? If what he did was legal and authorized, etc...where am I making him look bad?

Maybe you could clarify a bit for me.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

This headline is not libelous. It's rare that I weigh in as de facto managing editor of this network and a professional journalist myself, but I will here.

For the record, libel is a written defamation of character -- that is, "a false and unprivileged statement of fact" that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning "as a result of negligence or malice." (For the full jist of the law presented in a consumer-friendly Q&A, read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law.)

Erin Kotecki Vest's post is a fair and true report of what two news outlets (newspaper The New York Sun and blog The Smoking Gun) have published about a public controversy involving three public figures (Messrs Bush, Cheney and Libby). Here is an excerpt from EFF's legal guide that every blogger covering news and events should save to their computers:

What is a "fair and true report"?
A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.

What if I want to report on a public controversy?
Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them."

Erin's blogging certainly meets this standard. She blogs using the same professional techniques she employed for years as a journalist -- a non-emotional, unvarnished reporting of the facts, journalistic best practices on first references (full names, titles) for individuals and publications. You won't find always find those practices on the blogs she quotes, but you will always find them in Erin's posts -- which is why I recruited her especially to write news round-ups.

In other words, Erin is still a journalist in her role as a BlogHer contributing editor, and has the right to report on this story as long as she works within this standard. Again, via EFF:

"Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

My concern, upon reading this exchange, is that someone interested in discussing and exchanging the news of the day could absorb a chilling effect--and muzzle themselves.

That's a risk I'm not willing to take -- so here are some links to Legal Tips for Bloggers, two podcasts I did in advance of BlogHer Conference '05 with expert attorneys Lauren Gelman and Wendy Seltzer. Before you abridge your own First Amendment rights -- or accuse anyone of libel -- I recommend you listen to their insights.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

I will say in broadcast world any mention of "Bush" and "Plame" in this context have been as distanced as New York is to California. Now the MSM is focusing on Bush's issues on a moral issue, rather than a legal one. Still repeatedly the MSM broadcast is saying he authorized the declassification of the document, not 'authorized the leak of Valarie Plame's name."

Maybe in a court of law it would not stick. But the impression is there.

Still, perhaps this sort of protectionist aspect of broadcast news is why so many in the blogosphere think the MSM is contributing to a sort of mirage?

At the same time, quoting conjecture by Surburban Guerilla is an interesting part of this discussion. Who says Bush ran ops for Atwater? Who says 'he loved it?' Comments like that make professional journalists like me as uneasy--as the "l" word potentially makes you. Unless it's touted as MOS for your piece, or, rather ironically "MOB"

ALL I do, essentially, is MOS. I'm rather unique here at BlogHer in that I am giving you a quick news summary and where you can find the women blogging about it. They conjecture, I simply tell you where you can find them and what they are saying. In no way, shape, or form am I investigating, on-scene reporting, or giving you any sort of personal opinion. I'm simply giving you news items that have the blog world buzzing and your surfing guide to find the women doing the buzzing.

As for the leak /declassification issue. I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is. If you catch my drift. Mike Allen seemed to sum it up well, but he is MSM.

In all seriousness though, my entire thrust here is MOS. Or MOB. Or even more accurately, WOB. Wow. We just went from Man on the Street to Woman on the Blog. Quick. Someone copy write that for us.

And I'm guessing only us professional journalists will find that funny.

You will see me in breaking news situations here at blogher if a story gets hot and the blogosphere is going crazy over it-like in the case of the declassification/leak. And on a regular basis with daily news items. So I will give you a short hit on what's being reported and then links to where you can find it being discussed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

but this conversation--as you know would have been stand operating procedure in any newsroom.we don't operate in the realm here of course. and I get and appreciate where you both are coming from. I am saying however that such a headline in my biz would have been quickly rephrased for perpetuity. thank you though and we will talk more on many of these topics.
p.s. congratulate me: I did this from my phone. Signed, always learning!

Yes, I am finding the world of blogging very different from a classic newsroom as well. And odd. But also a tad liberating. I think it's going to take me some time to get used to it!

And you deserve a hearty congrats. My phone can't even take pictures.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain