Miniter's Notebook

"Some folks will make excuses for Novak, but just think about it: how many young journalists, young opinion-makers, bloggers of all ages, and columnists would give their left arm to be on CNN?

"Would they walk off the set for any reason?

At the best, it shows strain; at the worst, an amazing sense of confidence that there are no consequences for his actions....which may be why Novak is at the center of the Plame case to begin with."

Okay, let's look at these remarks closely. 1) A lot of young people and bloggers would give their left arm to be on CNN. So? Unknown but ambitous people always want a shot at the small screen. Why would CNN put them on, if they can't draw ratings like Novak? By the way, being a proven TV commodity is no small achievement. TV ratings are broken in 15-minute increments and all of three of the major cable networks actually watch the ratings of their guests; imagine how zealously they scrutinize the ratings of their on-air talent. If these unknowns rated better than Novak, they would be on and he would off.

2) These unknowns wouldn't walk off the set. Again, so what? Novak's little stunt drew more attention to CNN than anything that network has done in years. Brit Hume played the clip, thereby doubling the viewership. I mean, if it wasn't for CNN International in overseas hotel rooms, I wouldn't even know the network was still on the air. Oh, and seeing Wolf Blitzer at Café Milano. Without those two data points, CNN would be well on its way to be a freshman philosophy problem—if a tree falls in the forest, and only CNN covers it, does it make a sound?

As for walking off the set, I was tempted to do that once. I had already ripped the microphone off. I had been set up and wasn't even allowed to respond to a series of attacks, which were not even based on my work. And I've talked to others who are regularly on TV. Everyone has had that moment, at least in my limited sample. But few actually do it.

3) Then Gandelman moves on to the Plame business. I never understood why Novak is supposed to be the villian here. He was simply reporting what his sources told him, which turned out be, ahem, true. You want to blame the sources, fine. They may have committed a crime. But let's not forget the elephant in the pantry here: The CIA, driven by Plame, sent Wilson to Niger with the express purpose of getting back a report to undermine a statement the president had made in the State of the Union. Why is the CIA playing politics? And why this coy, you-exposed-a-secret-agent tripe when they got caught? Why is no one talking about the CIA? I still remember when "moderates" were skeptical of that agency...