The Sunday morning talking heads had a lot to choose from this week. Rumsfeld is up against himself on two Sunday morning talking-head shows. NBC is talking to infectious disease experts, starting with Fauci. He's much more credible than the politicians. Woodward is second string for now. Here's an interesting perspective on his story:

Confidentiality must be kept
an editorial by H. Rosenfeld (a href="http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=421571">link
First published: Sunday, November 20, 2005

When after 30 years shrouded in secrecy W. Mark Felt was revealed as Deep Throat earlier this year, it was news to me.
As Bob Woodward's editor at The Washington Post during the Watergate investigation, I decided not to press Bob on the identity of what since has become the iconic confidential source.

From my work before and after Watergate, I strongly believe that investigative journalism and the public are both best served by preserving the confidentiality of confidential informants -- forever. That means even after the source has died, and withstanding the demands of the historical record. To my mind, it is more important to preserve confidentiality to help right future wrongs.

So I was sorry that Deep Throat's family had blown his cover.

While the work on Watergate was under way and having for some time heard about "Woodward's friend" (later dubbed Deep Throat), I thought I should know who this person was and where he fit in the unfolding story that every day was taking on more import.

I asked Bob to tell me his source's name. We were in my small office at the side of the newsroom. He looked at me, and solemnly said that if I insisted, he would tell me. He added that he had made a commitment to Deep Throat to keep his identity totally secret for the sake of Throat's job and even possibly his personal safety.

I instantly calculated that the under-the-gun Nixon administration likely would unleash the Justice Department on us to discover the anonymous source. Reporters and editors might be put under oath and either have to tell or perjure themselves or go to jail. I knew in my heart Woodward would never talk and therefore likely would wind up in jail. I thought it important that as many people as possible be left at liberty to continue to pursue the investigation.

I decided to leave Deep Throat's identity in Woodward's bosom.

Only years later, I came to understand that was one of my biggest mistakes in a long newspaper career.

In a conversation we had Friday, Woodward did not recollect my asking about Deep Throat's identity, understandably so three decades and more later, but he found it plausible.

All this comes to mind now, because last week Woodward apologized to the executive editor at the Post, Len Downie. Woodward had not told Downie until October that another confidential source, this one high in the administration of George W. Bush, had mentioned the name of Valerie Plame Wilson to him, thereby making him the first journalist to have had her name and job with the CIA revealed to him. Woodward kept his silence throughout the investigation by a special counsel into the potential illegality of the outing of an undercover CIA operative, which Ms. Wilson ostensibly was.

He kept still as other reporters, including two from his paper, testified under certain conditions, and Judith Miller of The New York Times was jailed for 85 days before working out a deal with the counsel.

Woodward says that he told no one in order to preserve his informant's confidentiality -- which he considered of primary importance -- and to keep himself from being caught up by the investigation. Apparently he was not asked by The Post, although he is without question the Washington reporter with the best contacts in the Bush administration. The reaction of Carl Bernstein, his Watergate reporting colleague, was to express his confidence in Woodward's integrity. I share that sentiment. But just like the Miller case, this latest brouhaha raises implications for investigative journalism that impact the credibility of the news media and the public they purport to serve.

When reporters confer confidentiality they do so not on their own behalf alone, but they bind their publications as well, at least to a point. The absolute minimum requirement is that the reporter keep his/her editor informed, especially when the issue is of larger moment.

Woodward says he learned of Ms. Wilson's name in an offhand manner at the end of a long interview and doesn't think it was part of a deliberate campaign. He would have been better off to run his impression past his editor at least, because no one can read minds, though everyone can make judgments. Those invariably would benefit from a second opinion.

Harry Rosenfeld is editor-at-large of the Times Union.