Posted on 06/07/2005 8:08:13 AM PDT by kristinn
Last week, Vanity Fair scooped the Washington Post when it revealed the identity of the Post’s legendary anonymous source Deep Throat. Once Vanity Fair had reported that Deep Throat was actually W. Mark Felt of the FBI, speculation began to circulate about his motives for feeding information to the Post. Bob Shieffer on Face the Nation Sunday argued that Felt’s motives were unimportant, because his actions had saved America from becoming “a nation of men, not laws.”
Fair enough. Suppose, however, that Deep Throat had orchestrated the Watergate break-in and then leaked to the Washington Post in order to frame his co-conspirators. Would his motives matter then? Judging by the Post’s recent reporting on a political scandal in Maryland, the motives of anonymous sources feeding information to the paper are not important if the result is a chance to relive the Post’s glory days of Watergate, if only in some small way.
E-spionage In October of 2004, a Maryland state employee named Joseph Steffen entered into a discussion on FreeRepublic.com using the screen name “NCPAC.” Another Free Republic user (or “freeper”) using the screen name “MD4Bush” engaged Steffen in a friendly way on the public message board. The two began exchanging private e-mails, in which they discussed longstanding rumors about the personal life of Baltimore mayor and likely 2006 Maryland gubernatorial candidate Martin O’Malley (D).
In early 2005, the e-mails were “given” to the Washington Post by a source that remains unidentified in the paper’s reporting. Post reporter Matthew Mosk confronted Steffen, who verified that he had written them. When Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich (R) found out that the Post was planning to portray Steffen as part of a coordinated effort to spread rumors about O’Malley, Ehrlich had little choice. He accepted Steffen’s resignation.
SNIP
When I asked Mosk how he could trust the source who gave him the private e-mails from Free Republic, he reminded me that Steffen had confirmed that he had written the e-mails. But this does not tell his readers anything about the way in which these private e-mails were brought to the attention of the Post in the first place. Isn’t that important for readers to know? Don’t readers deserve to know why this source wasn’t named? What does this source have to hide? And why hasn’t the Post made available to its readers the entire e-mail exchange between NCPAC and MD4Bush? Or told its readers about how MD4Bush posted excerpts of the e-mails on Free Republic on February 8 and then vanished? By failing to answer these questions, the Post has failed to live up to its own guidelines.
Who is MD4Bush? “We will find out,” (WBAL-TV reporter) Dave Collins told me. “I have full confidence it’ll come out.” In addition to the reporting of Collins and Miller, Joseph Steffen has retained a lawyer, who said he is attempting to get MD4Bush’s account information from Free Republic. Hopefully the truth will come out before it gets to that point.
Does the Post care about MD4Bush’s identity? Mosk would not tell NRO whether the Post is investigating. It would be in the Post’s best interest to do so. It has already been scooped on the identity of one anonymous source this year.
— Stephen Sprueill reports on the media for National Review Online's new media blog, which debuts today.
bump
From what JimRob has said, that lawyer sure ain't gonna need a crowbar to pry out that info.
Bump.
MD4Bush Ping!
(FReepmail me if you want on or off the list)
Bad question. The Washington Post IS a Democratic operative.
"Was the Washington Post Used by Democratic Operatives in Maryland?"
Calling Captain Obvious--Captain Obvious to the white courtesy phone....
Bump! I'm chomping at the bit here, waiting to see if there's EVER going to be a break in this case!
BTTT
Or perhaps endless is the wrong word to use. They ended when NCPAC and MD4BUSH exchanged emails-- months before the story broke. Almost as if whoever it was who had been bumping those threads suddenly had what they needed.
Definitelly a good read..............BTTT
When are these clueless reporters going to learn that Free Republic isn't a blog, and that Freepers aren't "bloggers"?
I think you expect the lemming herd to think not just regurgitate. Keep trying.
Well, one good thing is that the longer it takes in finding out who MD4Bush is, the closer we are to the election, meaning a bombshell will have a greater impact on O'Malley's campaign.
Here's what I have on this:
The O'Malley Affair- NCPAC, MD4Bush, Ehrlich, & more
various FR links & stories | 02-13-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1342165/posts
RE: In early 2005, the e-mails were “given” to the Washington Post by a source that remains unidentified in the paper’s reporting.
Also, of note, as known by a number of us who have been following this, MD4Bush posted the emails to a seemingly unrelated thread within the time window of publication of the initial WaPo story ...
It's good to know that all the hard work of spreading rumors and gossip does not go unnoticed by 'journalists'. Mark and David, thumbs up! Great work! It's like a Woodward and Bernstein deja vu!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.