Pro-Rove Headlines in Star Tribune and Washington Post

Testimony of magazine reporter might help Rove

Headline: Testimony of magazine reporter might help Rove

Sub Head: It’s not clear how the testimony could benefit Karl Rove, who remains under investigation in the CIA leak case.

Hello? If it’s not clear how the testimonay could help Rove, how can you lead with a headline saying that it might?

What I see here is Rove’s own attorney testisfying to Fitzgerald about conversations he has with a reporter at Time magazine who happens to be a person friend. That stinks of Luskin trying to sell his client’s case through a friendly member of the press. Or possibly coaching a witness on what she shouldn’t remember when talking to Fitzgerald?

What are the changes that Viveca Novak, who is close to Rove’s lawyer, was NOT one of the reporters who received leaked (or is pissed a better term?) information about Valerie Plame from Karl Rove?

The Washington Post used the following headline for the story on their front page:
Time Reporter Called a Key to Rove’s Defense In Leak Probe

Same inconclusive facts, with a headline implying that Viveca Novak is somehow going to clear Rove’s name based on an anonymous source who appears to be working for Luskin (if it’s not Luskin himself).

Washington Post & Star Tribune: You can do better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.