PressEthic

Just in case we forget, we’re reminded each day that we’re waiting for the announcement of whether or not there will be indictments after Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s deliberation of the evidence in the Valerie Plame leak case.

The New York Times’ article on the website’s homepage today titled “No Announcement From Leak Counsel as Deadline Approches” started with a brief update of who went where (FBI agents, Fitzgerald, the President and all of those implicated), branched out into a discussion of possible outcomes besides indictment and included the Democratic point of view. Things are handled briefly and to the point.

The Washington Post, however, took many more words to say much the same thing. The headline of the story is an indication that there might not be too many new developments – “Bush Aides Brace for Charges.”

The first paragraph doesn’t really go too much farther:

The prosecutor in the CIA leak case met with the federal grand jury today and was prepared to outline possible charges, two days after the FBI conducted last-minute interviews in the high-profile investigation, according to people familiar with the case.

Who are these sources? And aren’t we all familiar with the case? Nevertheless, the article spends a good deal of time recapping what the case is about.

What could be new information is saved until the sixth paragraph:

In a report in the New York Times that the White House pointedly did not dispute, Fitzgerald was said to have notes taken by Libby showing that he learned about Plame from the vice president a month before she was identified by columnist Robert D. Novak.

There is no indication Cheney did anything illegal or improper, but the report was the first to indicate that he was aware of Plame well before she became a household name.

If the scoop is in the Times, why am I reading the Washington Post?

I understand that the possible indictment of high government officials is big news that interests readers. But while we’re waiting for the announcement to be made, there’s no need for long articles recapping something that we’ve been talking about for months. It gives the impression of sensationalism, even if that wasn’t the intention.