Counterleak: That is Alton Frye's idea to resolve the "who outed Ambassador Wilson's wife, former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame" issue. (Frye is the presidential senior fellow and counselor at the Council on Foreign Relations).

In a NYT op-ed piece, "Let Someone Else Do the Talking, Frye notes that there are 2 kinds of leaks:

"leaks elicited by a reporter while investigating a story often serve the public interest — and merit the journalist's protecting the identity of that source. Leaks initiated by self-serving antagonists in the political process — and calculated to exploit journalists as convenient mouthpieces — rarely serve the public interest and deserve less protection."

Once we've created this philosophical dichotomy, argues Frye, it becomes easier to resolve the present problem, as "Most journalists are properly wary of the second type of leak, and often decline to publish them. That was true, it appears, for some members of the news media who received calls regarding Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer."

There are several problems with that approach. "Self-serving antagonists in the political process" often release information that incidentally serves the public interest. Of course guys like Karl Rove have a political agenda, and are calculatingly "exploiting journalists as convenient mouthpieces." But what they reveal sometimes has value.

Frye believes the reason journos don't reveal their sources is to ensure future access:

"Yet journalists are dissuaded from naming sources of all kinds by both ethical considerations and pragmatic concerns over future access. This creates a situation in which a devious leaker is shielded by the journalist's ethical restraint — and derives de facto constitutional shelter under the reporter's First Amendment privilege.

Is there a cure for this problem? Yes: call it counterleaking. To protect against such manipulative behavior — and to discipline those who practice it — reporters could themselves assume the status of confidential sources and share those names with other journalists."

I suspect Mr. Frye -- whom I've never read previously -- has spent too much time in Washington D.C. Divulging your sources under the cloak of plausible deniability is still, well, divulging your sources. Having a convenient lie handy to cover your ass doesn't make you any less of a liar, assuming you promised to guard the leaker's identity. (Perhaps Mr. Frye is ready to start consulting for Wall Street). As absurd as this idea may sound, some people prefer to maintain their integrity and keep their word just because it’s the right thing to do.

There may, however, be a hierarchy of competing ethics: When getting leaked info, a Journo must make a judgment call as to whether the leak content is newsworthy. What else influences that decision? I suspect that the more politically overt the motivation of the leaker, the higher level of "newsworthiness" the leaked data must contain in order to be published. Indeed, as we've seen in the present case, an obviously political leak with zero public interest content was not put into play by the 6 "legitimate" reporters who received the information. They made that political motivation/public interest analysis and decided on balance against publishing. The only columnist who used it was a well-known partisan hack with his own agenda.

So I find it unlikely that the 6 legit reporters would sua sponte follow Frye's advice to leak the information to other journos. Yet when we look at the entire process surrounding this leak from a strategic perspective, an interesting dilemma arises: What circumstances might pre-empt the confidentiality promise, and prompt the reporters to reveal their sources?

Consider this hypothetical: Let's take a random Senior Administration person (O.k., we'll use Karl Rove). Assume Rove testifies to a Senate committee about an unrelated matter. One of the Senators asks Rove a question about the Plame affair while he is under oath. Rove can either tell the truth, tell a lie, give an ambiguous noncommittal answer, or simply refuse to answer.

What happens if Rove lies under oath to the Senate?

That’s where things get interesting: The six journalists who received the original "tip" outing Valerie Plame have now become the de facto arbiters of all the leakers' public honesty. They are now a 6 man Truth Squad. The 6 journalists who know if Rove is lying or not would have to weigh which obligation is higher: Protecting the promise of confidentiality to a source, or reporting a newsworthy event. That event would create a competition of duties.

I believe that the reporters -- one of only 6 in the world -- who knew that Karl Rove committed perjury would have no choice but to publish that information. Thus, all future promises of confidentiality now come with a caveat: If you reveal data to me, but then lie publicly about it, my promise of confidentiality will disappear.

I imagine that the Plame leakers find themselves stuck in an interesting dilemma: Without any additional activity on their part, the Truth Squad will in all likelihood honor their confidentiality agreement and protect the sources; However, any public statements by the leakers or their surrogates is now subject to a high level of scrutiny by the Truth Squad.

Very interesting dilemma . . .

Posted at 03:30 PM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/763/219420

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Counterleaks and the Truth Squad: