I feel kinda guilty diarying this, considering all that's still happening with Katrina, but I did want to get this out there as a heads-up:
Media Matter just issued a
Press Release titled -
Did Time Intentionally Deceive its Readers in Plame Case?
I know when the LA Times did that timeline about a week ago, TIME was discussed, but I'm not sure to what extent they were discussed in that diary.
Maybe the point that Media Matters brings up was already discussed? (I'll admit, I didn't read all the comments - my bad.) If not, I think it certainly makes you wonder about what TIMES motives are.
Some quotes below and a brief timeline:
The issue of Time's actions over the past two years was revived by an August 25 Los Angeles Times article stating that the magazine did not pursue a waiver from Rove allowing Cooper to testify in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year." While the favor this "concern" did for the Bush re-election effort has been criticized, Time's lack of disclosure about its own role in the affair has gone largely unnoticed. [...]
Here's a little timeline to cover the period of time that Media Matters discusses:
07/11/03 - Rove talks to Cooper
07/11/03 - "Cooper sent an email to Michael Duffy, Time's Washington bureau chief, relating what Rove had told him about Wilson's wife and saying that Rove had spoken on "double super secret background."
07/12/03 - Cooper confirms with Scooter Libby the identity of Plame.
07/14/03 - Novak's column.
10/13/03 - ...three months after receiving the leak from Rove and Libby, Duffy -- the very person to whom Cooper had passed on the information concerning Wilson's wife and the source who gave that information to him -- wrote an article for Time on the subject. In the article, to which Cooper contributed reporting, was this passage: [...]
"...White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are "ridiculous." Says McClellan: "There is simply no truth to that suggestion.""
Duffy wrote that Rove was "initially" accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak, as though Wilson was no longer making that accusation or that the accusation was found to be without merit.
And here's Media Matters point:
Of course, it turned out that Wilson's charge was correct, as Cooper and his editors knew all along. Despite that knowledge, Time printed a quote from McClellan that they knew to be false without offering any refutation.
Duffy, Cooper, and Time not only failed to inform their readers in July 2003 that they were part of the story, but they continued to report on the leak without offering that information for more than a year. In addition to two stories in October 2003, Time wrote about the leak again on January 12, 2004. It was not until August 2004, when Cooper was held in contempt by the grand jury investigating the Plame leak, that it was revealed that Cooper was involved in the Plame affair.
So, besides not wanting to report this story during an election year, why did TIME very obviously use quotes from Scotty that THEY KNEW TO BE FALSE?
Why would they do that? This kind of thing always goes over my head. :o(
Update [2005-8-29 17:29:43 by Terre]: smintheus mentioned he hadn't read the TIME article by Duffy (neither have I yet) so I thought I'd put up the version offered by TruthOut Leaking With a Vengeance since the TIME article now goes to their "pay for it" page.
Update [2005-8-29 17:55:9 by Terre]: Corrected date (Thanks QuickSilver) of Novak's article and also if you want to read Media Matter's release (plus comments) on their website click here.