"The problem of journalism in America proceeds from a
simple but inescapable bind: journalists are rarely, if
ever, in a position to establish the truth about an issue
for themselves, and they are therefore almost entirely
dependent on self-interested 'sources' for the version of
reality that they report."
Source Code
James Risen's CIA sources have led him astray before.
by Thomas Joscelyn
The Weekly Standard
01/04/2006
BY NOW it is no secret that the timing of James Risen's December 16 bombshell concerning the NSA's eavesdropping program coincided neatly with the publication of his new book, "State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration". As a veteran reporter covering the U.S. intelligence community for the New York Times, Risen is uniquely positioned to spill at least some of the details of this secret history. But perhaps not in the manner he thinks.
Risen's book-promoting tour made a stop on NBC's Today Show with Katie Couric on January 3. Risen used the opportunity to testify to the veracity and nobility of his sources in the NSA eavesdropping matter. According to a summary of his appearance offered by ABC:
<<< On NBC's "Today" show this morning, New York Times scribe Jim Risen told Katie Couric that he hopes he will not have to reveal his sources to a grand jury and declared his story to be the exact opposite of the Plame case. Risen claims his sources revealed information for the best possible reasons and he went on to declare those sources "patriots." >>>
According to media critic Mark Finkelstein,
<<< "time and again, Risen defended his sources as having the 'purest' and 'best' motives, springing entirely from their concern for the rule of law." >>>
But if history is any indication, Risen should be a bit more skeptical of his sources and their motives, in general.
As has been pointed out previously (see articles in THE DAILY STANDARD here and here), Risen's sources led him astray regarding the interrogation of senior al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.
weeklystandard.com
weeklystandard.com
Risen's anonymous sources told him that Zubaydah had denied that Saddam and al Qaeda were working together and he reported this bogus account ("Threats and Responses: C.I.A.; Captives Deny Qaeda Worked With Baghdad") in the New York Times on June 9, 2003.
<<< "Several [anonymous] officials," told Risen that a transcript of Zubaydah's interrogation was circulated "within the American intelligence community last year . . . his statements were not included in public discussions by administration officials about the evidence concerning Iraq-Qaeda ties." >>>
Thus, according to Risen's sources, the Bush administration was being duplicitous by not citing Zubaydah's testimony, which supposedly cut against the case for linking Saddam and al Qaeda.
What Risen's sources did not tell him--and we did not learn until more than a year later, when the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report on prewar intelligence--was that
Zubaydah "also said, however, that any relationship would
be highly compartmented and went on to name al-Qaida
members who he thought had good contacts with the Iraqis.
For instance, Abu Zubaydah indicated that he had heard
that an important al-Qaida associate, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi,
and others had good relationships with Iraqi
intelligence."
That portion of Zubaydah's interrogation never made it into Risen's June 9, 2003 account. Why? Because his anonymous sources--the same types he now tells us have the "purest" and "best" motives and who are "patriots"--didn't tell him that.
As Edward Jay Epstein noted in his 1975 book, Between Fact and Fiction,
"The problem of journalism in America proceeds from a
simple but inescapable bind: journalists are rarely, if
ever, in a position to establish the truth about an issue
for themselves, and they are therefore almost entirely
dependent on self-interested 'sources' for the version of
reality that they report."
Thomas Joscelyn is an economist and writer living in New York.
weeklystandard.com
powerlineblog.com
newsbusters.org
weeklystandard.com |
