Keeping secrets -- and blathering over trivia

There aren't many topics that would make me focus on anything serious in this column, and perhaps the Karl Rove controversy isn't the best reason to do so.

But, honest to goodness, President Bush talks to Rove every day. He knows whether or not his trusted adviser told some reporter types that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent.

Three questions:

1. Who cares?

CIA spymaking was not, as far as I can tell, in any way damaged by this revelation.

That's not what sustains this hubbub, is it? No, journalists of every ilk are absorbed with Rove's motivation and whether or not it constitutes White House rot.

As far as I'm concerned, finding out that someone works for the CIA is about as newsworthy as any of the other screaming headlines that dominate the news these days:

* Husband kills pregnant wife and is convicted in a sensational weeks-long trial. (How many dozens of times a year is a pregnant woman murdered?)

* Music idol is prosecuted for being too friendly to children. (How many American children are viciously molested by relatives and acquaintances?)

* Teenage girl goes to party-crazy island and disappears. (How many missing teens are reported each year in the United States?)

* Woman makes millions telling us how to stew plums and iron blouses and then lies about a stock tip, winding up in federal prison. (How many white-collar criminals go to Club Fed every day?)

2. Why not do the obvious?

The president could -- and could have months ago -- say, "Karl Rove did/did not do it," whichever is the truth.

That's not the way things work in Washington.

Bill Clinton could have said, "I did have sex with that woman. So what?"

Ronald Reagan could have said, "We swapped arms for hostages, and their families are mighty glad we did."

Richard Nixon could have said, "Breaking into the office of my political opponents was a stupid thing to do."

Lyndon Johnson could have said, "Americans always want a reason for going to war, and politicians are always capable of manufacturing one."

Harry Truman could have said ... well, he pretty much did.

Franklin Roosevelt could have empowered millions of disabled Americans instead of hiding his polio. He could have said, "Don't let this wheelchair blind the vision of a great nation."

3. How can ethical reporters be so irresponsible?

Two reporters were ready to go to jail -- one of them is sitting in a cell -- to protect the integrity of their pledge to protect the identity of the person who outed Plame as a CIA agent.

So far, so good.

But some of my journalistic colleagues -- who presumably share those same ethical ideals -- see no problem in revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, even though the person accused of being the source of this information is skewered for disclosing the same information.

Does this make sense?

Journalists who promise not to reveal their sources do so advisedly, because the wrath of an ill-tempered judge falls on reporters, not their sources.

So why, exactly, was it so important to tell the world that Valerie Plame draws a CIA paycheck?

Just because a reporter knows something doesn't mean he has to share it. That responsibility is ethically as great as protecting a source.

In a world of hype, real news is the victim, and we are worse off for it.

R. Joe Sullivan is the editor of the Southeast Missourian.