Does 'duty to warn' exist among journalists?

[MoonRiver]

In the mental health profession, confidentiality is strictly followed, with one exception: duty to warn. If a client reveals something that could result in suicide or homicide, the therapist is ethically required to notify the authorities, possibly the client's family members, and, if relevant, the person or people being threatened.

My point is that outing a CIA agent would seem to be a case of threatening the lives of others. But I don't know if such a code of ethics exists within the press.

[efhmc]

1. Don't know but I have been wondering the same thing.

[YNGW]

2. Reply

It's my understanding that Novak is claiming that it was "known" around DC that Ms. Plame was a CIA operative and that's why "out-ting" her was not really "out-ting" her.

Mind you readers, I'm not touching on the subject of whether or not a crime was committed by this "out-ting", so to answer this post with that in mind completely misses the point of this post.

The reason of my point in the first paragraph is that it comes down to a question of whether or not a reporter believed that the life of an individual was truly being threatened given that he had concluded through his collaborated interviews that what he was reporting was common knowledge.

Novak's been around too long. You don't last that long in the DC press corp by not documenting and verifying your information.

[efhmc]

3. But many things might be "known" but making them public knowledge is

quite another thing. Rumors and asides don't have the weight that published idea do.

[YNGW]

5. Reply

I meant "known" as in public knowledge. Novak is claiming that when he called to confirm what the WH insider had told him, his sources at the CIA confirmed that it was "common knowledge around DC" that Ms. Plame had worked covertly for them. They're claiming they were out-ted for political purposes. Thus the rub.

But more to your question, how can a reporter who in good faith believes he is reporting information about someone that is common knowledge be held responsible for endangering their life? I don't see how they can, but that's up to others to decide.

[RainDog]

6. And Novak also claimed the company she worked for didn't exist

Novak claimed the company which provided a "cover" for Plame didn't even exist, when it turned out that it does, in fact, exist, and has now, no doubt, been identified for all who might have been compromised by that information.

Josh Marshall, at Talkingpointsmemo.com said he did a search of Novak's writings about things of this nation, and he, Novak, knew that operative meant agent, not analyst.

I don't see how you live in DC as a journalist talking about national security and yet have no idea what different words mean.

Maybe the Mayberry Machiavellis were sloppy because their arrogant abuse of power has made them overstep in a way that endangers someone who is part of the hunt for WMD.

The horrible irony that they insisted on going after Saddam, with no WMD, yet may have truly hindered this search around the world by their political vengience.

But they were going to have their war on Iraq no matter what anyone said.

[YNGW]

7. Interesting Conjecture

At this point I'm hard pressed to believe that Novak would be a willing stooge for anyone. He's been around the block too many times, he's sure to have documented what he was told, and someone who's been in the DC press corp as long as him typically have their P's & Q's lined up.

We'll see how it develops.

[LiberalFighter]

12. After watching him over the years and recently on Crossfire

Novak would get on his knees to service bush and company.

[DrBB]

10. Which stands in direct contradiction to the emerging WH defense

Novakula sez "Evyboddy knew she was a CIA operative."

But the defense, or at least the one sent up as a trial balloon in the recent nefarious WPost article, is the legalistic claim that whoever 'outed' her DIDN'T know she was a CIA operative (i.e. covert asset, which is what "operative" means as a term of art). And the law has an exception for inadvertant disclosure.

But it can't hardly be the case that every one knew, so it was okay, and yet whoever outed her didn't know, so it was okay. Can it?

Maybe Rummy can help here: "There are things we know, things we don't know, things that we know that we know, things we know that we don't know, and things that we don't know we don't know."

Well, dunno about you, but that cleared it up for me. Phew!

[TorchTheWitch]

11. but

Novak wasn't the only reporter the information was given to. There were several others.

[jonoboy]

4. the journailists involved lack ethics anyway so why would they warn ?

[Gin]

8. Plame may have been "known" around "town"...but she had nothing to

do with any news happening.....her name was dropped to scare others.

Rove was so cock sure about this one. Methinks he has stepped on his dick!

[MoonRiver]

9. Owie, owie!

:D