Newspaper Editorial Pages on CIA Leak

By: Seth Porges News that White House officials might have leaked the name of a covert CIA employee to a newspaper columnist in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the administration has made national news since Tuesday, with opinions on the brewing scandal appearing on newspaper editorial pages Wednesday.

Nine of the 15 highest-circulation papers featured editorials on the matter, with one other (The Wall Street Journal) referencing it in regards to another issue. Most of the editorials focused on the political implications of the situation, and whether it demanded the appointment of an independent counsel or not.

The Boston Globe was the only one of the top 15 papers to clearly call for an independent counsel to investigate the allegations -- a step proposed by many congressional Democrats and presidential candidates due to perceived conflict of interests between the Bush administration and the Justice Department.

Two of the papers, Newsday of Melville, N.Y., and The Washington Post, thought that an independent counsel was not necessary yet, but may very well be soon. "The Justice Department has now opened an investigation, presumably to determine, first, whether laws were broken," the Post wrote. "If they were, Democrats' calls for an independent investigation of some kind may prove justified."

Much of the papers' initial trepidation stems from a desire to prevent a repeat of the Clinton investigation, in which the Whitewater special counsel lasted for years, consuming millions of tax dollars. "But if there is even a whiff of political contamination, any evidence of pressure or obstruction by Ashcroft or the White House, then naming a special counsel could become unavoidable," Newsday wrote. "That would make a messy situation even messier."

The New York Post called the Democrats' demand for an independent counsel hypocritical. "Indeed, the same Democrats who just a few years ago supported the expiration of the independent counsel law, citing Kenneth Starr's probe of then-President Clinton, are now eagerly calling for its return," the N.Y. Post wrote. "That would be a mistake."

The Chicago Tribune criticized the Democrats for trying to politicize the situation into "a story of revenge. ... The speed with which Democrats made their demand suggests they have dreams of payback, of a Kenneth Starr-style fishing expedition in the Bush administration," the Tribune wrote.

Three of the top 15 dailies, USA Today, The Dallas Morning News, and The Arizona Republic of Phoenix, made no mention of the possibility of a special counsel, but still had quite a bit to say on the matter.

"Outrage, not acquiescence, is the right reaction to suggestions that an attempt to quiet administration critics may have put lives at risk," USA Today said. "Yet for more than two months, the White House has done little to get ahead of this scandal and determine whether presidential aides were involved."

Curiously absent from the editorial pages of 14 of the 15 highest-circulation daily papers was whether or not Novak should have printed the classified information once he got it. Administration officials allegedly disclosed the operative's name to as many as six journalists, of whom only Novak went public with the information.

Of the 15 highest-circulation papers, only the Chicago Sun-Times' editorial page discussed whether Novak should have published the information. "We believe ... fervently that it is the responsibility of journalists to print awkward facts, at times even facts that are passed on to them in violation of the law," the Sun-Times opined.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters@editorandpublisher.com.