Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Correction: This piece has been retracted and corrected in a subsequent note from the editor. CJR Daily apologizes to the network, to Russert and to our readers for the error.
We read with some dismay a Kit Seelye and Adam Liptak story in Saturday’s New York Times headlined, “Novel Strategy Pits Journalists Against Source.”
The writers note that Scooter Libby’s trial on perjury and obstruction charges seems certain to pivot around the testimony of three reporters, and “will largely turn on whether jurors are more inclined to believe a government official [Libby] … or members of a profession [reporters Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and Judy Miller] whose own credibility has been under assault.”
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, told Seelye and Liptak, “This is exactly the thing that journalists fear most — that they will become an investigative arm of the government and be forced to testify against the sources they’ve cultivated.” Reporters, she noted, were “used [by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald] to get the indictment and will be a central part of how the prosecution proceeds.” Fitzgerald himself in his Friday press conference was at pains to describe any reporter to whom Libby lied as “the eyewitness to a crime,” upon whose testimony the case against Libby may well rely.
And Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Times, “Reading the indictment makes my blood run cold. This whole thing hinges on Russert.”
So naturally we turned with keen interest to today’s edition of “Meet the Press,” hosted by Russert himself. What would Russert say? Maybe: “My next guest is … myself! And, boy, am I going to be tough on ME …”
Well, no. What Russert said about the Libby indictment and pending trial, and his own apparently central involvement, was … nothing. Nada. Non. El zippo. Not one word.
The entire show circled warily around the indictment, focusing instead on how President Bush might recover from a bad week, with former advisers to Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton sharing their memories of … 1978 … 1985 … and 1997.
Silly us. We were hoping for something about, oh, we don’t know, maybe the year 2005? Maybe even this past week ? Specifically, Friday of this past week?
The account of events that Russert gave to Fitzgerald, is, as Dalgish noted, a foundation stone of the subsequent indictment of Libby. And his testimony seems certain to become critical to any prosecution of Libby.
We’ve commented before on the tendency of reporters to take an Olympian and detached view even when reporting on matters in which they themselves are central players. But for Russert not to acknowledge his own role here goes beyond even Olympian detachment. It is deception by omission.
It’s awkward enough when there’s an elephant in the room and the reporter on the scene fails to point it out. It’s beyond awkward when the elephant who is going conspicuously uncommented upon is the reporter himself.
Russert is a consummate pro. He should address this story, and his role in it, forthrightly. This kind of disingenuous silence is, frankly, beneath him.
–Steve Lovelady
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
