Newsweek
Feb. 13, 2006 issue – Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal” her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge’s opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was “unlikely” to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of “national defense information,” the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

The new papers show Libby testified he was told about Plame by Cheney “in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion” in mid-June—before he talked about her with Miller and Time magazine’s Matt Cooper. Libby’s trial has been put off until January 2007, keeping Cheney off the witness stand until after the elections. A spokeswoman for Libby’s lawyers declined to comment on Plame’s status.

—Michael Isikoff

There are three fundamental problems with Marie Brenner’s 15-page piece on Plamegate and Judy Miller in the April Vanity Fair (hitting newsstands tomorrow):

1.) It’s laughably biased. Brenner is a close friend of Miller — she co-hosted a dinner for her on July 4th before Miller headed to jail, visited her at the Alexandria Detention Center, partied with her after her release, and is longtime friends with Miller’s husband, who used to be Brenner’s editor.

The article is nothing more than a massive attempt to rehab the disgraced reporter.

But Brenner doesn’t mention that she even knows Miller until 7 pages into the article and doesn’t mention that they are friends until 11 pages in (long after painting a highly favorable picture of Judy as a misunderstood victim/martyr/heroine).

“At times,” writes Brenner of Plamegate, “the complexities of reporters’ commenting on one another’s behavior had the feel of a taffy pull as friends wrote about friends while trying to exhibit detachment.” That surely makes this piece the ultimate taffy pull.

Full disclosure: I have been friends with Brenner for thirty years — I can’t swear that she danced at my wedding, but she definitely attended it — and I respect her loyalty to her friend. But that loyalty should be expressed privately, not by trying to rewrite history in the pages of a national magazine. Also, especially given our friendship, I find it telling that Brenner — even though the Huffington Post‘s coverage of Plamegate is discussed repeatedly in the article — never talked to me for her piece. Instead, the weekend before her deadline, she left me an obligatory voice mail message saying she had some questions for me; I promptly returned her call but never heard back.

This isn’t journalism; it’s a Sag Harbor circle jerk.

2.) It’s shockingly incomplete and incoherent. In order to make her Plamegate narrative fit a predetermined frame of Judy as First Amendment martyr, Brenner has to leap over huge chunks of the story. Because of this, the article is both extremely basic — Plamegate 101, seemingly written for folks who haven’t picked up a newspaper or turned on a computer in the last couple of years — and almost impossible to follow. If Brenner were your sole source of information, you’d have absolutely no idea what really happened with Miller and the Times. There is no mention of the unprecedented Times mea culpa about Miller’s prewar coverage, and next to nothing on the internal struggle at the paper that saw Miller go from Judy of Arc, lauded in 15 Times editorials and compared to Rosa Parks, to a W 43rd Street pariah being publicly slammed by Times editors and columnists and shown the door. We get Floyd Abrams as avuncular Free Speech hero but no explanation of why he was eventually replaced by Bob Bennett as Judy’s lead attorney. Maureen Dowd warrants the most minor of mentions, and, most bizarrely, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. — long Judy’s staunchest supporter — isn’t mentioned at all.

And since Brenner is so intent on casting Judy as a journalistic superhero (even though no one bought her in that role last time around), she needs to put her up against a villain — and casts the dastardly blogosphere in that part. She cluelessly treats bloggers as some kind of monolithic entity, “a vast amoeba,” while totally missing the point of the blogosphere — its relentlessness and its willingness to go where the establishment media won’t.

In Brenner’s telling, “the noisy new democracy of the blogs” — “Chalabi-haters, Rove fanatics, bloviators” — is inaccurate, quick to judge, and unencumbered by conventional journalistic constraints.

Incredibly, Brenner sees no irony in accusing bloggers of being inaccurate and without editorial constraints while defending Miller, whose tragically inaccurate reporting, plastered all over the front page of the “paper of record,” became an indispensable tool used by the White House to sell the Iraq war to the American people.

Leave it to Brenner to totally ignore this giant pink elephant in the middle of the room.

3.) Brenner’s central thesis is wrong. Her overarching premise is that that Judy Miller went to jail for a noble cause — the ability of reporters to protect confidential sources — but the public and the press (led by those nasty bloggers) failed her and now it’s open season on the free press.

“Traditionally,” she writes, “there have been two generally recognized exceptions to journalistic privilege: matters of life and death and imminent actual threat to national security.” But there is a third exception that Brenner conveniently leaves out, an exception spelled out in the ethical guidelines of the New York Times: “We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.” This was unequivocally the case with Plamegate. And, as the Times‘ ethical guidelines make clear, there is a world of difference between sources using confidentiality to blow the whistle on government or corporate misconduct, and sources using it to promote a war — or to smear a critic of that war.

Even inaccurate, unedited, bloviating bloggers know that.

Brenner’s piece is hyped as “the untold story of Plamegate.” Turns out, there is nothing untold here — but a whole lot that the untold story doesn’t tell.

Pat Tillman’s Dad: ” What Happened To My Son…It Has Been Lie After Lie After Lie”…

Posted on March 20, 2006 at 8:06 PM. 

Patrick K. Tillman stood outside his law office here, staring intently at a yellow house across the street, just over 70 yards away. That, he recalled, is how far away his eldest son, Pat, who gave up a successful N.F.L. career to become an Army Ranger, was standing from his fellow Rangers when they shot him dead in Afghanistan almost two years ago.

Read the full story »

Big-Name Journalists Spar Over Sources at NYC Gathering

By Jennifer Saba
Source: Editor & Publisher

NEW YORK This morning, Court TV gathered a group of columnists, editors, attorneys, and academics to discuss “the rule of the law vs. the rule of journalism” at the popular media haunt Michael’s in mid-town New York. With panelists Norman Pearlstine, Floyd Abrams, Nicholas Lemann, Richard Cohen, Michael Goodwin, Michael Wolff, Paul Holmes, and moderator Catherine Crier, the allotted hour was barely enough time to kick around complicated issues — like the unfolding of the Plame story and other related concerns about confidentially and anonymous sources.

During his opening remarks, Henry Schleiff, chairman and CEO of Court TV, tried to sum up the theme of the breakfast panel as “Sophie’s Choice for the mensa group.”

With that, Court TV’s Crier threw out the first question, seized by the call-’em-as-he-sees-’em Vanity Fair Contributing Editor Michael Wolff.

Crier: “When is a source not a source?”

Wolff: “When the source is a story. That’s a softball question.”

Wolff, whose column in the September issue of Vanity Fair sharply hit the role of journalists in the Plame story, pushed his argument even further this morning over a plate of scrambled eggs and pancakes. He posited that if Time magazine had run the Matt Cooper story — i.e. Rove as the leaker and master puppeteer — a year ago, President Bush may not be in office serving a second term or we may not have had as many deaths in Iraq.

Further, Wolff called this the “biggest story of our age.”

First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams, who is representing jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in the Plame case, dismissed Wolff’s remarks as pure hyperbole. “Reporters should keep their word to their sources,” he said.

Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Richard Cohen seemed to enjoy sparring with Wolff the most: “This is not a major story. It’s a crappy little crime and it may not be a crime at all,” he said. “The issue is this: You gave your word, you stick to it.”

http://www.aim.org/press_release/4130_0_19_0_C/

AND NOW… NEXT WEEK’S NEW RELEASES!

A DVD: Still riding high from their reunion tour, the Robinson brothers, better known as the BLACK CROWES, are documented on “FREAK N’ ROLL INTO THE FOG,” shot live at the Fillmore in San Francisco from their four night run last August that featured your favorite hits, a treasure trove of covers, and an inspired acoustic set. 19 tracks plus bonus material.

ANOTHER DVD: DAVID BOWIE’s “SERIOUS MOONLIGHT” tour of 1983 finally gets proper DVD treatment in the US. Featuring an inspired set of new and old material as well as the bonus documentary “Ricochet,” which was shot during the Far East portion of the tour.

YET ONE MORE DVD: QUEEN – “THE MAKING OF A NIGHT AT THE OPERA” is just that, an in-depth look into the creation of one of the greatest albums of the ’70s, featuring interviews with Brian May, Roger Taylor, Joe Perry, Ian Hunter, and the always eloquent Nuno Bettencourt.

LUKA BLOOM – “INNOCENCE.” The introspective and super-sensitive Irishman releases his tenth album, hot on the heels of Purim.

ELVIS COSTELLO – “THE JULIET LETTERS” (2 CD EXPANDED REMASTER). 1993’s experiment in chamber-pop, featuring the Brodsky Quartet, was one of those “love it or hate it” records, but even if you didn’t go for the Brodskys’ classically-tinged backings, Costello’s writing and vocals were first-rate as usual. The remaster includes a bonus disc of rare and unreleased material of more of Costello’s forays into classical from throughout the ’90s, as well as some live tracks recorded at Town Hall with the Brodskys, one of which is an incredibly moving version of the standard “They Didn’t Believe Me.” For the record, Sal loves it, and Tony doesn’t dis-love it.

BEN HARPER – “BOTH SIDES OF THE GUN.” Split up over two CDs, which together equal the running time of one CD, Harper ruminates about the long running time of CDs and how they should be shorter. A concept album that really works. For those paying attention, Harper has always been a favorite among surfer dudes and jam band-loving hackysackers, and this record shows both sides of Harper’s gun. One side of his gun is really rockin’, and the other side of his gun is kind of acoustic. Put them together and you get one heck of a gun. Probably the best record he’s made without the Five Blind Boys Of Alabama.

HOWARD KAYLAN (OF THE TURTLES) – “DUST BUNNIES.” We mostly want to know what the following means: “The songs were handpicked by Kaylan from years of seldom-heard B-sides and album cuts recorded by his favorite artists and supplemented by new arrangements of more familiar pieces, and a rock original or two.” HUH?

LOOSE FUR – “BORN AGAIN IN THE U.S.A.” Sophomore release from the Wilco side project. When their first album came out a few years ago in the wake of Wilco albums like “Summerteeth,” it sounded pretty out-there, almost experimental. Now, compared to the last few Wilco albums, this one sounds like a pop album in comparison. Highly recommended, whether or not you’re a Wilco fan.

PRINCE – “3121.” OK, we said all the crap about it last week. Who cares, he’s over, yada yada. Truth is, it’s a pretty good album, and much better than the over-hyped and overrated “Musicology.” It seems as if, for the first time since 1987’s “Sign O’ The Times,” and even 1996’s underrated and underappreciated “Emancipation,” Prince has put together a cohesive collection of songs that actually sounds like one recording session, as opposed to a collection of throwaways from his vaults. Take it from two diehard Prince fans-turned-Prince haters: the first two or three songs that have been heard by the masses (“Black Sweat,” “Te Amo Corazon,” and “Fury”) are three of the weakest songs on the record. Prince is back?

SOUTHERN CULTURE ON THE SKIDS – “DOUBLEWIDE AND LIVE.” Everyone’s favorite chicken eatin’ white trash rockers release their first commercially available live record. If you’ve never been to one of their live shows, this is evidence of what a great time you’ve been missing all these years.

SPARKS – “HELLO YOUNG LOVERS.” The brilliant followup to “Lil Beethoven” gets a US release. Words cannot describe just what the Mael brothers do with instruments and words, but we will provide you with a special link where you can find a film clip of Tony and Sal explaining just what this record sounds like, with the assistance of a spatula and a whole lot of xanthan gum.

from Alter-reviews:
I saw Andrea Marcovicci perform a show of Cole Porter love songs at the Oak Room in the Algonquin Hotel last week. The woman is a throwback to a better time and place. Marcovicci, has a mature beauty, a fierce intelligence, a hungry mind, and voice that blends in with her carefully chosen material that combines into an iconic cabaret performance. Whitney Balliett, writing over a decade ago, described one of her performances, as follows: 

“[Her] set in the Oak Room generally includes over twenty songs, and lasts an hour and a half. She starts poised on a small platform in the crook of the piano, both hands on a floor microphone in front of her. A measure into her first song, her hands take off. She holds them at her sides, index fingers pointed at the floor, or moves them willow-fashion on either side of her head, or knots them together at one side of her waist. Then she rests her right hand on the piano and, folding her left leg up behind her, grasps the heel of the shoe with her left hand–a “Gee, I’m shy” gesture from a thirties Ginger Rogers movie. All the while, she turns slowly from side to side, giving the impression that she is trying to look into the eyes of each of her listeners. (When she catches you, you suddenly feel like the only person in the room.) Around her seventh or eighth song, she takes the microphone from its stand and sails easily up onto the piano. She crosses her legs, then lets one leg dangle over the edge. Her hands keep dancing. She combs her short brown hair with her fingers and rests her hands, palms down, on the piano, steadying herself in the waves of applause. Somewhere around the thirteenth number, she jumps down on the platform and finishes the set there. She smiles much of the time, but when she does a ballad her eyes go dark and the lines on either side of her mouth tighten and she looks as tragic as Duse.”

I can’t really improve on that. The current show is part of an ongoing project she is undertaking to rescue some of Porter’s lesser known material and present the better known songs in a new context. It is a warm, witty show which she is taking around the country. You can see her at the Oak Room if you have a lot of money or you can buy the cd—which she is pressing minus the artwork until she makes enough money to add that later. Read up on her here.

Hey MSNBC-TV guys. You ruined my bagel Monday morning with your full page ad.  I didn’t mind the photos—I don’t love them, but I can live with them,–but why in the world did you guys leave out the captions? Here they are, as public service:

• Norah O’Donnell, alleged moderate, no politics
• Pat Buchanan, nice guy, extremist conservative, proud McCarthyite, possible anti-Semite, Reagan adviser
• Keith Olbermann, no politics
• Chris Matthews, alleged “moderate,” hated Clinton and Gore, loved Bush, but opposed war and worked for Tip O’Neil, extremist Catholic moralist.
• Joe Scarborough, nice guy, extremist conservative, Republican congressman
• Peggy Noonan, extremist conservative, believer in magic dolphins, Bush worshipper, Reagan adviser
• Howard Fineman, alleged moderate but actually voice of (mostly) conservative conventional wisdom, no politics.

---

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fourwallers20mar20,0,6835689.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlinesFrom the Los Angeles Times

COLUMN ONE

Playing Out of Pocket

In a Las Vegas practice known as ‘four-walling,’ entertainers pay to perform. It’s worked for George Wallace. Robert Goulet is another story.

By Sam Howe Verhovek
Times Staff Writer

March 20, 2006

LAS VEGAS — To pitch his product, George Wallace has glad-handed every concierge in Las Vegas and talked up hundreds of taxi and limo drivers. He’s gotten up at 4 a.m. to do drive-time radio on the East Coast.

He’s pored over spreadsheets, working to stretch the hundreds of thousands of dollars he spends on billboard, newspaper and radio ads.

Then, shortly after 10 p.m. five nights a week, Wallace steps onto a stage he rents at the Flamingo Hotel and Casino and presents cocktail-sipping audiences with what he’s been selling: the George Wallace show.

Wallace, 53, is a comedian, a friendly bear of a man who once wrote jokes for Redd Foxx. Now he draws laughs with a grumpy shtick of his own, a harangue on subjects ranging from a nephew in baggy pants — “I wanted to kick his tail, but I didn’t know where it was” — to indulgent ministers who preach “six commandments and four do-the-best-you-cans.”

But to perform his comedy, Wallace also has had to become an entrepreneur of sorts. He takes a multimillion-dollar risk by literally paying to play in Las Vegas.

In Vegas parlance, Wallace is a “four-waller,” the term used when an entertainer pays for his or her stage time. It’s an increasingly common arrangement that guarantees the hotel or casino rent and puts much of the marketing and production onus on the performer, unlike the more traditional contract in which the performer receives a set fee.

For the entertainer — often an aging star or perhaps one who never made the showbiz A-list — four-walling is a huge roll of the dice, with odds of success that make the craps tables look inviting.

Performers like Wallace, who is entering his third year at the Flamingo, can make four-walling pay if they sell enough tickets to make their rent and payroll, which for him is no small matter. Wallace oversees a staff of 14, including stagehands, light operators and even the maitre d’ who seats his customers.

While some four-wallers can turn a profit, they can also lose big — running through a bankroll in a hurry. And in the brutal economics of Las Vegas show business, even if they pay the rent, entertainers risk being tossed out if they do not bring in enough people. Casinos not only expect customers to go to the show, but also to arrive early or stay afterward — preferably both — and gamble.

Perhaps the most notable collapse of these self-financed arrangements happened with onetime heartthrob Robert Goulet, the singer and actor, who pulled the plug on his 2001 four-wall deal at the Venetian after just a month, calling it “the stupidest thing I’ve ever done in my life.”

Expenses for his show, “Robert Goulet: The Man and His Music,” were far outstripping ticket revenue, he said. Among these were the $15,000-a-night cost of the Venetian’s Showroom stage.

“It’s a losing game, and it’s a shame Las Vegas has gone that route,” said Goulet’s wife and manager, Vera Goulet, who added that she still bristles at the experience.

“A man like Robert Goulet shouldn’t have to pay to perform,” she said. “He should be paid to perform.”

Neither party to four-walling particularly likes to advertise the arrangement, and financial details are often kept secret by mutual agreement. Some casinos run as many as four shows a day through a given stage.

And although casino executives say they use pretty much the same yardstick for four-wall deals that they would for traditional contracts — an ability to draw a crowd — four-walling has obvious advantages.

“Absolutely it’s less of a risk overall,” said Ira Sternberg, a vice president for community relations at the Las Vegas Hilton and host of a weekly radio show. Other casino executives describe the arrangement as a “more dependable” or “more straightforward” revenue source.

But the odds are against the performer, said David Saxe, a producer here who is also an adjunct professor in the hotel and casino school at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

Saxe estimated that only about 10% of those who four-wall make any money. “It’s a tough town,” added Saxe, who produces “V — the Ultimate Variety Show” at the Aladdin’s Desert Passage.