Was Robert Novak a Journalist?
Here is Clarence Page on Robert Novak, who died earlier this week:
We seldom agreed on political issues, but he always knew how to make a good case for his side. More important, at a time when just about everyone who has a keyboard seems to think they can be a journalist, Novak showed how the best way we can serve the public is through solid, glamour-free fact-gathering. Our audiences will be the final judges of whether we have done the right thing.
You probably know where this is going, but Page was doing fine until he heaped his scorn on the "unprofessionals" -- the folks with no press credential other than their keyboard.
Page is confusing a couple of things here. First, no journalist should have a "side." At least not one that shows. The job of the journalist is to give both or all sides their due, to give them a fair hearing. Page and Novak, however, long ago transcended the definition of "journalist" to become members of a different caste, that of the commentator. Commentators espouse opinion. They approach issues from a perspective.
A problem with where media finds itself today is that all the roles are confused. Feeding the beast means that reporters find themselves pressed into video duty to explain their stories before the copy is filed. True, some go gladly into the glare. And, honestly, doing so is smart and inescapable.
But asking reporters what they think of the stories they are covering blurs the line between what reporters do and what commentators do. So if we know what a commentator is, what is a journalist?
Page seems to think -- if I may put words into his mouth -- that journalists can only be those who are in a fraternity of ... of ... what?
For the longest time, what made a journalist was a city editor who decided, based on the cut of someone's jib or gleam in their eye or turn in their phrase. Then the ranks were mostly filled with the professionally trained, holders of degrees similar to mine.
Under the watch of my degreed cohort, journalism has entered what most say is a death spiral, but what even the most charitable say is a time of flux.
Where the Pages see anarchy and mountebanks with laptops, I see a democratization, a rebelling against being spoonfed information that leaves us starved and suffocated.
I'll take the democracy, even if it borders on anarchy, over the cloister of the fraternity.
But Novak or Page could not be commentators without first having been journalists. What made Novak a good commentator -- regardless of what you thought of his politics -- were the same things that made him a good journalist. People other than Page, who are unable to see past Novak's politics, don't understand journalism.
Novak was nobody's lapdog and he was unafraid to say -- and write -- what he thought.
Best of all, love him or hate him, he was always interesting.
Most people vilify him for his role in the Plame-Wilson affair as the person who 'outed' Plame. However, a close reading of the whole matter shows, first, that there were no heroes in that whole saga and, second, Novak was just doing what a good reporter does, tenaciously going after a story and the flatulent posers trying to peddle their own versions of it.
So with journalism lumbering through a period of spasmodic ineptitude, the people with hopes for its future could do worse than to emulate Novak's joy of the hunt, his fierce determination in getting at the crux, his refusal to be cowed and his understanding of the darker natures of the folks at the levers of power.
I blanch at the thought of a press corps without his sturdy sense of what's right and true.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Novak was a full-time pundit, and part time stenographer.
Your admiration of Novak is misplaced. The man was a liar - plain and simple. I followed the Plame affair closely and if I had the time today, could go back and document his numerous versions of "the truth".
Aside from the right or wrong of ignoring the initial request from his CIA source NOT to publicize Plame's name, Novak helped create the meme spouted by so many that her work for the CIA was already known or that she wasn't a spy but a lower level operative. Ironically, she headed an operation which targeted nuclear proliferation and the release of the information about her came directly from the Vice Presidents office. Novak was a useful tool in their attempt to push back against Ambassador Wilson. That attempt resulted in Plame being outed and endangered the lives of all who she had worked with in foreign countries. It was and act of treason for which no one has been held accountable except Scooter Libby. Novak was part of that and then lied numerous times about his actions.
I assume there's a special place in hell where Novak's despicable, withered soul can spend eternity.
There should have been a special place in GTMO for people like Novak.
This country needs far fewer traitors. We call them conservatives.
Of course not. if Novak was a journalist so is Sean Hannity. Same difference. Both are equally vile conservative propagandist.
He talked like a mafia, dresses like a mafia and looked like a mafia.
there are no real jourmalists left just shills for the party line
"Was Robert Novak a Journalist?"
Yes, but that was a very long time ago.
Actually, Richard Armitage outed Plame to Novak. Novak had no clue what a firestorm the story would evolve into. I agree with almost everything else you wrote. Novak was one of my heroes. He was conservative, but he was also very much interested in getting the truth. And that made him a great reporter who we will miss. http://theclosetconservative.com
Perhaps he was once interested in "the truth", in a journalistic sense, however I can't accept the notion that his last years were spent in anything but a search for an expedient and sufficiently malleable truth which could be bent to support a conservative purpose.
As intelligent as the man clearly was, his September 3, 2008 column addressing the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate is a classic example of "putting lipstick on a pig".
In his column, he suggests that McCain could ignore media and democratic criticism of his selection because:
"... Palin appears to be an outstanding candidate but also because McCain in his first test as party leader came through with a unique and responsible decision."
and
"...McCain made a politically ingenious selection. "
and
"Gender politics aside, she is an ideal running mate."
I cannot be convinced that he genuinely believed any of this to be true, but rather the need to support his conservative candidate won out over any attempt to provide so much as an accurate depiction of McCain's choice, much less any larger truth. Furthermore, I believe his "scoop" on Plame was motivated much more by his implicit desire to support Dick Cheney and the smear campaign against Joe Wilson in the run-up to the Iraq war. Neither of these instances are the hallmark of great journalist, but rather a committed political essayist with a definite agenda.
Yes, Robert Novak's analysis of the Palin candidacy relegates his credentials to those of a political hack posing as a journalist. His involvement in the Plame case is further proof of what he really was and was not. He never could be trusted as a journalist but only as a shill for the far right.
Aside from him being a trai.tor, I believe the best description of Novak is "Muckraker."
IN THE END: NOVAK WAS A TRAITOR...
He knew exactly what he was doing when he committed TREASON. He outed a covert operation that was tracking WMDs throughout the world... something Bush used as a smokescreen for his criminal/traitorous operations -- for which all in the Bush administration should be prosecuted. But NOVAK WAS EASILY USED BY BUSH/CHENEY MAFIA. Why? Ideology? Fame? Ego? We don't know exactly why traitors do what they do, but they do it. Novak DID IT GLADLY AND WITHOUT SHAME OR REMORSE.
Do we know yet if anyone in Valerie Plame's operation was MURDERED because of what Novak did?
Do we know yet how many lives will be taken throughout the world WITH WMD's or because of WMD's, their sale, their proliferation?
No... not yet, anyway. THAT will the the 'rest of the story.' For now, what we know for SURE is that Robert Novak was a TRAITOR.
Novak was partisan commentator, but not treasonous nor a traitor.
Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, § 2381 promulgates the crime of treason:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Clearly, Novak committed none of these acts.
As far as being a traitor, Novak wasn't charged under existing law with revealing the identity of a covert operative because it was unlikely it could be proven he did so knowingly. His column explicitly declared that Ms. Plame worked at the C.I.A., but only indirectly hinted that her position was actually covert.
As I stated previously, his motivations for publishing the information were clearly political, especially after multiple attempts by C.I.A. officials to "warn him off" failed to dissuade him from mentioning Ms. Plame. To be fair, the C.I.A. could not simply state "she's a spy, you can't print that...", so they were forced to be coy and that gave Novak all the wiggle room he needed.
Lastly, using shrill rhetoric, such as the terms treason and traitor, tends to blunt any legitimate thesis that might be lurking in an otherwise cogent post.
explicitly declared that Ms. Plame worked at the C.I.A., but only indirectly hinted that her position was actually covert."
Huh? So intelligence from other countries can't figure out that a foreigner who says shes and 'engineer' but actually works for the CIA, is covert?
their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason"
How does nforming Iraqi intelligence that Plame is a spy not give them aid?
I got your cogent right here.
I thought he was more like a pimp for gossip.
"Prince of Darkness", no, "Hack from Hell", yes. The price of Novak's "sources" was shameless hucksterism. He attempted to sell the agenda and ideology of the right with out regard for truth or fairness. His corruption only got worse as he aged.
His disinclination for honest reporting was evident early. Even as his "Evans & Novak" partner Rowland Evans was placed on Nixon's enemies list, Novak's "prevailing winds" reporting kept him in the Right's good graces.
He was, however, ahead of his time. His "journalistic" excess was a prelude to and a model for FOX style "reporting" of talking points and only talking points. Without shame.
If Novak ever was a 'reporter' it was all the way back in the 1970s. he's been a pundit ever since.
It seems once after they've been invited to one too many Beltway dinner parties EVERY Washington 'journalist' sells out. Their job stops being to report the facts and turns into calling the horserace, or listing each side's respective talking points, or boosting their friends. In the last couple days Juan Williams especially has turned to the 'dark side' in interviews, he's taken the VERY big step from reportage to pundit commentary. His utility as a reporter has droped to zero. Why would a reporter interview another reporter anyway? That's like the snake who swallows his own tail.
No.
from the amount of responses, I guess no one cares.
Most of you guys are apparently too young to remember Novak the journalist. He was famous for his sources. He cultivated a mix of high and low level staff, obscure state pols, etc.
Read "The Boys on the Bus" for an earlier counter cultural take on Novak.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
