Novak Shouldn't Reveal Sources, Many Columnists Say

By: Dave Astor Many of his fellow columnists think Robert Novak was wrong to reveal the name of an undercover agent, but many also feel Novak shouldn't now reveal his sources.

Novak, of course, is the Chicago Sun-Times/Creators Syndicate writer who named the CIA-employed wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson in his July 14 column. The leak -- currently being investigated at the federal level -- was seen as White House retaliation for Joseph Wilson's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

Among those who feel Novak shouldn't "out" his sources are two columnists with much more liberal politics than Novak's.

"It would set a terrible precedent for those who expose government secrets for a higher purpose," said Roberto Rodriguez, co-writer of "Column of the Americas" for Universal Press Syndicate.

"If any laws were violated, the people who did the violating were the Bush-administration officials who disclosed the information," added Norman Solomon of Creators. "Even when they're bottom-feeders in the tank with officialdom, journalists should be shielded by the protections of the First Amendment. Novak was just doing his job as a columnist who wants to help President Bush win a second term. My criticisms of Novak have to do with his ongoing role as a scribe who's committed to serving the Republican Party."

Conservative columnists Cal Thomas of Tribune Media Services and Kathleen Parker of the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel (Click for QuikCap) and TMS also think Novak shouldn't be compelled to reveal his sources.

"I think the principle of confidentiality holds," said Thomas.

"When you promise confidentiality in exchange for information, you keep your promise," added Parker. "End of discussion."

And Suzette Standring -- vice president of the National Society of Newspaper Columnists (NSNC) and a self-syndicated columnist in Boston -- said: "I'm generally opposed to ever giving up sources. In the big picture, it damages the flow of truth and information by drying up sources."

But some columnists think Novak should reveal his sources.

"This is no ordinary case of merely protecting one's sources but of shielding individuals who may have committed a crime," said Froma Harrop of The Providence (R.I.) Journal and Creators.

"I think if I were a party to a crime I'd fess up and not hide behind journalistic privilege," added NSNC President Mike Leonard, a columnist for The Herald-Times of Bloomington, Ind. "Novak was either used or was a willing accomplice to a felony. Other journalists were also fed the same information and they had the integrity to not run with the information. I've still never heard an explanation from Novak that makes sense."

But if a solid majority of the seven columnists polled by E&P supported Novak on sources, most were critical of his decision to name Wilson's wife. Leonard, for instance, emphasized that Novak was "absolutely wrong" to do that.

"Novak was wrong, pure and simple," agreed Harrop. "He was wrong to identify a CIA operative and magnified the sin by using an anonymous source to do so. Anonymous sources should be used almost never. A rare exception is when the source reveals an impropriety. Novak perversely used an anonymous source to commit an impropriety -- or, perhaps more precisely, the source used him."

Those criticizing Novak for naming Wilson's wife include some of the columnists who don't think Novak should reveal his sources.

"Novak was wrong because he did not advance a story," said Rodriguez. "Instead, he allowed himself to be used as part of the government's retaliation against Wilson."

Standring added: "Novak got hoisted on his petard by his casual use of the words 'CIA operative' in describing [ Wilson's wife] instead of describing her as 'administrative' or as an 'official.'"

Parker staked out more of a middle ground when discussing Novak's July 14 piece. "I hate second-guessing other reporters and columnists when I don't know the circumstances except as told by someone else," she said. "If Novak knew [Wilson's wife] was undercover and revealed her name, then clearly he was wrong as well as legally liable. If he didn't know, as he claims, then he's probably not legally liable. As I understand it, intent is a critical element under the applicable law."

And Parker doubts Novak was a "willing co-conspirator" in helping the White House retaliate against Joseph Wilson for criticizing the administration's Iraq policies. "That seems implausible as Novak has been against the Iraq war from the beginning," she said.

Cal Thomas was the least critical of Novak among those polled. "It would appear to me that the White House leaked a name that was pretty well known around town as being a CIA operative, though at the time the name was leaked she was not actively engaged in spying," he said. "If that had been the case, her life might have been in jeopardy and that would clearly have been wrong. Also, her husband seemed to be pretty loose about her role as an agent -- mentioning it on more than one occasion at social functions, as I recall reading."

E&P actually surveyed 15 columnists -- with four not responding and four declining to comment for reasons such as being too busy, being uncomfortable discussing the issue, and wanting to save any opinions on Novak for their own columns.