So rhetorically, Novak’s column sets up Pence as the voice calling for a shield law, even while his argument is basically a defense of the economy of smears on which Novak has made his living. Think about that rhetorical move for a minute.

This would fit with a man who claims that he ‘doesn’t take notes on interviews’, presumably so that he can maintain ‘plausible deniability’ in order to protect himself and his sources from legal jeopardy. It must flatter his vanity to suppose that his secrets are so very valuable they require legal protection, but it’s probably futile.

(Lengthy pondering ensues…a bit OT)
Novak’s obsession with shield laws strikes this reader as one key of the paradoxes of the times in which we live. So many people — Novak being a stellar example — derive their identity and income from secrets, while all over the world people work openly and collaboratively (generally of different nationalities)y on projects, either for business, research, or Open Source initiatives: most of that collaborative knowledge work CREATES VALUE. In contrast, it seems unlikely that Novak’s secrets can continue to retain their ‘information value’ in a world reshaped by forces that view secret information as untrustworthy, error-ridden, and suspect.

Novak believes that his secrets have value in a world being reshaped by Wikipedia, Google Earth, WordPress, and ‘pirate economics’ (remix, remash, reloop, revise). His assumptions ignore fundamental shifts in society, communication, economics, political affairs, or national power.

I don’t think Novak ‘gets’ what’s happening socially and economically.
It’s not about whether I do, or don’t, like Robert Novak. It’s that the information he offers is diminishing in value, and no shield law will shore up — or inflate — his declining relevance.

The paradox between the roles played in the Plame case by the NYT’s Nicholas Kristof (who covers environmental and human rights issues) and Robert Novak (who excels in national security intrigues) fascinates me. Kristoff seems to see the world far more broadly, and realistically, than Novak does. Arguably, Kristoff is by far the better national security reporter, although that’s not his primary objective.

Kristoff has reported on teenage prostitutes risking AIDS in Thailand for $1.50/trick, he’s reported on the environmental degradation and resource scarcity that underlie the violence in Dafur, and he’s examined the implications of the rising sea levels. Arguably, AIDS, resource scarcity/desertification, and climate change are all very serious national security issues. Yet Kristoff doesn’t seem to obsess on getting a shield law.
I gather that Kristoff’s background is in biology; he pays attention to soils, crops, water, demographics, food supply, and — no big surprise — he explains how those seemingly mundane factors affect political stability. He risks malaria and other nasty effects of travel to hot, muggy places — and yet he is the reporter who first quoted Joe Wilson’s concerns about the bogus story of WMD/Niger yellowcake.
It’s not surprising that Kristoff wasn’t blinded by the neocon cocktail weenie gossip. Kristoff has traveled to Africa, spent time reporting in poor nations (like Niger), and he would have been able to assess and evaluate Wilson’s claims more accurately than Novak (who was caught up in the DC weenie circuit with its political intrigues and ignorance about the world’s poor).

Novak derives his livelihood from Beltway political intrigue and military-industrial secrecy. As near as I can fathom, Novak is incomprehensibly ignorant of the fundamental climate, resource, demographic, and cultural issues that are driving global politics. (Most likely, Novak ignorantly supposes that elections and government contracts have a bigger impact on world affairs than soil degradation, diseases, and starvation. After all, admitting ignorance of soils and crop viability would hardly add any lustre to Novak’s vaunted sense of self importance. Cocktail weenies are perhaps in short supply for ‘dirt guys’, aka soils scientists). The value of Novak’s information declines in conjunction with America’s sinking fortunes. His information still has value, but it isn’t really going to help identify the key, underlying problems that manifest as national security issues. It’s simply not that useful to know about military weaponry when people are dying of famine or disease.

In contrast, Kristoff’s information will continue to increase in value, IMHO. He’s trying to describe what’s at the edge of the curve, and that’s the information that is increasingly valuable. It’s not a litany of military weapons; it’s about seemingly mundane topics like soil moisture levels, seeds, and water quality.
Joe Wilson should be gratified to consider that his grave concerns were understood by a man who seeks to report on the world’s burgeoning poor, its diseases, and its hunger. Those are the serious threats to national security, no matter how many shield laws Novak is able to obtain.

Whether a shield law is enacted in response to Novak’s desires may be beside the point.
I have no clear grasp of what the world will be like in ten years — other than hungrier and hotter — but the value of secrets in a world where the problems that need solving require collective, social intelligence needs to be part of the conversation.

Novak’s information is losing its value.
Will the future be served by legalizing shield laws in the age of Open Source projects and the Internet…? It seems unlikely.

Fitz gave him a choice. Novak didn’t like it one bit, and Fitz would not change the choice ergo Fitz “sees journalists as adversaries.” Of course, Novak uses Miller as his validating example but that stand MO for Novak.

Novak is pretty good playing the game “conceal the hand behind the hidden agenda” but not good enough. Emptywheel sees right through Novak too. I don’t think Novak would like Emptywheel much either.

Kyl effectively put a hold on shield legislation after last year, proposing an alternative that actually prohibits a reporter from disclosing any classified information, whatever the merit of the classification.

I’m trying to translate the logic of Kyl’s “alternative.” Is the purpose of that alternative simply to stop whistle-blowers? And is that the purpose of Mukasey, Chertoff, McConnell, and, I guess, Bush?

I agree with BSL and Jane that it is beneath contempt for Novak to rabbit on loosely about the CIA leak investigation without a disclosure note, and pretty lax of WaPo editors to allow that.