Media Matters , the liberal media watchdog Web site, raises an interesting point about Time Magazine's coverage of the Valerie Plame affair.
Back in this October 2003 story, the magazine reported: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are 'ridiculous.' Says McClellan: 'There is simply no truth to that suggestion.'"
It is now clear that several reporters and editors at Time knew very well that McClellan's statement was false.
Media Matters writes: "But despite that knowledge, they participated in the publication of an article containing that quote, with no indication that it was untrue. They participated in the publication of that article, which, in reporting that 'Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak,' implied that Rove was no longer under suspicion -- even though they all knew that Rove was, in fact, [Matt] Cooper's source."
Is there any excuse for a news organization to print a statement that they know is untrue, without at least trying to clue their readers into the truth? That seems to defeat the central purpose of journalism.
So what should Time have done? One option might have been to go to Rove and say: We know McClellan isn't telling the truth. You either need to tell us the truth, on the record, or tell him the truth.
What if Rove had refused? One option might have been to go to McClellan and tell him that they had reason to think his statement was not accurate.
And if McClellan brushed them off? They should have stopped at nothing until they found a way to report what they knew to be the truth.
Another issue is why there's been so little discussion of this issue. Maybe we can fit it into one of the blogger ethics panel sessions.