Andrea MITCHELL Knows Who the WH Callers Are

******QUOTE*****

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031002/5553225s.htm

.... NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell says she was contacted by administration officials after Novak's column ran. ''They tried to point me in the direction of Novak's column,'' she says. Wilson says Novak's column was an act of vengeance by the Bush administration for questioning Bush's remarks about uranium in his State of the Union address.

Mitchell didn't run with the story because ''in such an instance it has to be an overriding reason to disclose someone's identity.''

Of Novak's decision, Mitchell says, ''I'm not going to judge him. I wasn't privy to his conversation with his sources or the context.''

As for revealing who tried to peddle the story to her, Mitchell said to disclose their names would violate the confidentiality that reporters promise their sources. ''That's the basis for which we protect our sources.'' ....

*****UNQUOTE****

Novak really is a tool? Or as someone called him (can't remember where I read it)a 'useful idiot'

One of the taking heads said that Novak is bristling at the suggestion that he was "used" by the White House.

My heart aches for him. /sarcasm

1. It's a MALE.

2. It's NOT a political operative type.

3. The IMPLICATION is that it IS a name we would know.

doesn't flow to the executive office of the U.S.A.

Not in her wildest dreams.

That is to protect individuals - not public officials.

Andrea Mitchell says that she was called to direct her to Novak's story,- so there whould be an outpouring against Wilson orchestrated in a lot of different places all at the same time-so this means she wasn't privy to the original leaker, unless the original leakers were ALSO the leakers to Novak.

Wilson says Rove was trying to fan the flames on the story, so we've only identified one of the fanners-of-the-flame.Maybe not one of the original leakers.

Number two: Will Pitt says that people who didn't fly with the leak are not bound by confidentiality, unless they guaranteed this privately. So why won't she tell us who fanned the flames?

called (the six called) would insist on their guys revealing the story in big bold headlines. This would be a scoop for them. I know if I owned a newspaper or a network, I would demand that any Andrea Mitchell's cough up the info so that our organization is the first to break the news. Fingers crossed and waiting that that will happen with one of those six sources---they would be breaking the new Watergate.

Cheney is in his Bunker.

Notice she says she got calls from the "administration" not the WH.

"As for revealing who tried to peddle the story to her, Mitchell said to disclose their names would violate the confidentiality that reporters promise their sources. ''That's the basis for which we protect our sources."."

Oh, please.

Journalistic "ethics", my eye.

Journalists do not violate confidentiality because if they did, no other "well-placed, high-level source" would ever -- ever -- speak to them again. They would be banished to the outer reaches of journalism Siberia.

And they know it.