Misunderstanding by innuendo in media reports on leak

Austin Bay:

The sudden press flap over Scooter Libby’s alleged “revelation” that President Bush declassified intelligence information related to Iraq is silly but all too predictable. The entire flap relies on mixing terms and “misunderstanding by innuendo” — a technique of demagoguery, not journalism. The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing “gotcha” with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.

Presidents and vice-presidents can declassify information based on their own good (or bad) judgment. That is a privilege and responsibility of the office. Their authority is near-absolute.Disseminating unclassified information isn’t a crime — no matter the technique used. The information can be disseminated at a press conference, in a press release, in a speech, or — yes– via leak. (UPDATE: Background links I should have included in the original post– though the president’s power in the sphere is common knowledge. The president is at the top of the Classification Authority hierarchy– he holds the ultimate clasification/declassification power. The vice-president is granted authority from the president. See this link to the relevant executive order regarding the vie-president. And I just found this article by Byron York which details the estension of presidential powers to the vice-president. York’s article emphasizes the formal codification of the vice-president’s classification powers, which is a change from past administrations.)

Reporters thrive on “leaks” because a leak usually means “scoop.” A leak can also mean “spin” but that’s an understood aspect of Washington’s political carnival. However, leaking properly declassified material isn’t a crime. Leaking classified material is illegal– and so is publishing classified material in a press release.

So what’s the story here? That someone who worked in the White House selectively passed properly declassified material to the press? That’s not a scandal; that’s Beltway business as usual. I’d love to hear that reported– it’s not news per se, but it would be refreshingly open and honest media analysis.

...

There is much more. This is another example of media dishonesty in reporting on the Bush administration. The left wing blogs have been agog over the story all day also. The leak in question had nothing to do with the leak that is the subject of the Libby indictment.

Powerline also has a nice roundup of links and comments on this leak story.

The Bush-hating side of the blogosphere is buzzing about the latest Plame-related news -- that Scooter Libby is said to have told the grand jury that he was authorized by President Bush, via Vice President Cheney, to leak "certain information" that was contained in the National Intelligence Estimate. That information was not about Valerie Plame. Nonetheless, Andrew Sullivan thinks that President Bush is "nailed." Tom Maguire thinks that Sullivan "can't read."

Andy McCarthy points out that there's no reason to believe that the "certain information" in question was even classified. According to McCarthy, "Almost certainly, what Libby was permitted to do was preview for certain reporters some of the highlights of what was shortly going to be made public in the NIE. That is, NOT disclose the classified information, but talk about what was going to be in the public domain."

...

There is more. Also Gateway Pundit calls it much ado about a redo. It " is really about the liberal media's rehash of a story that did not get any traction the first time around in February. Tom Maguire calls this the non-barking dog syndrome. HAH!"

Take a look.