Novak Still Subject of Intense Discussion

By: E&P Staff If Robert Novak is hoping people will stop thinking about his outing of a CIA agent in a 2003 column, he shouldn't look at the Poynter Institute's Romenesko site.

There's a link to a Washington Monthly story critical of the Chicago-Sun-Times/Creators Syndicate/CNN-based Novak, another link to a Chicago Reader column about Novak, and a letter from a Sun-Times editor taking issue with the Reader column.

The Washington Monthly story -- by Amy Sullivan, a Monthly editor -- is titled "Bob in Paradise: How Novak created his own ethics-free zone." Sullivan wrote, like many others have written, that Novak may have abetted a federal crime when he printed Valerie Plame's name after a government source or sources leaked it -- possibly to retaliate against Plame's husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq-war policy. Yet, Sullivan added, virtually no one has asked Novak about the Plame case during his many TV appearances since the column was published. The Monthly writer called it "the clubby support of a media elite whose standards he [Novak] openly mocks." Sullivan also reported being told that Novak would immediately end an interview with her if she brought up the Plame case.

Among the reasons Novak gets away with the Plame outing and other lapses, Sullivan wrote, is that colleagues respect him for not always toeing the Republican Party line and for being "one of the few" prominent conservative columnists who "launched his career in the newsroom" and still "works the phones."

Sullivan concluded that Novak's "set-up is nearly perfect -- as a syndicated opinion columnist and executive producer of his own show, [he] can say what he wants without fear of punitive consequences, and he can ignore what he wants, safe in the knowledge that no one of significance will ever press him." She contrasted this with Dan Rather and Howell Raines, "who provided full explanations and apologies once their errors were revealed."

Then there was the Chicago Reader column by Michael Miner. Among his points was wondering if the Sun-Times, by running a Nov. 21 editorial at the bottom of the page, was "just going through the motions of taking Novak's side" in the Plame case. And, speaking of the case, Miner wrote that Novak "talked to some creeps and printed what they told him. It's the creeps he won't identify, not some plucky whistleblowers." Miner also questioned how important Novak's affiliation with the Sun-Times (his home paper) is to his career.

That column elicited a letter to Romenesko by Steve Huntley, editorial page editor of the Sun-Times. In it, Huntley said the Sun-Times does strongly support Novak. And he wrote that Miner "might not be concerned about a CIA employee [Plame] using her position and the agency to try to influence political debate ... some people might see such a scenario in this case." And Huntley said Novak is identified with the Sun-Times when he appears on TV and when he's mentioned in media reports.