Addicted to news

The reporter who broke two of California’s biggest scandals — Enron and the California energy crisis — breaks his own scandalous story in his new book, “News Junkie,” a hard-boiled, tell-all tale of the rise, fall and rebirth of a journalist recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

Having written for years with Dow Jones Newswires, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times, Salon.com and The Nation, Jason Leopold now reports for the independent media outlet Truthout.org.

In May, Leopold stirred much controversy when he reported the imminent indictment of Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, for his alleged involvement in leaking the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Recently, Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin gave a statement refuting that report, resulting in a full-scale attack on Leopold by reporters and bloggers across the nation.

(Editor’s Note: On Wednesday, July 5, former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay died of an apparent heart attack at his home in Colorado. The 64-year-old Lay, a good friend of President Bush and a major contributor to Bush’s first campaign for office, died six weeks after a jury found him guilty of fraud in the Enron scandal.)

Pasadena Weekly: Why do you think Patrick Fitzgerald hasn’t yet spoken publicly about Rove escaping indictment?

Jason Leopold: He doesn’t want to comment on the case at all. Fitzgerald, according to Luskin, said [in a letter], “Barring any unexpected developments [he] does not anticipate bringing criminal charges at this time.” The one single common thread in this whole story has been [that] the media — the Big Boys — have gone to the publicist, in a sense, asked for the press release, and printed it as fact. There is no way I’m going to believe that Rove, who testified five times at length, suddenly gets a pass. If [that] is the case, then Fitzgerald ought to come out and say the investigation is over. If it isn’t over, and he’s looking at somebody else, it makes you wonder if Rove provided information to save himself. But Fitzgerald won’t even confirm that he’s written this. His office won’t even confirm it. I find that incredibly troubling. Luskin is basically saying, “You’re going to have to trust me.” We’re talking about a public investigation. We need to see the evidence. What we at Truthout reported did not come to pass, but we’re not going to just sit back and buy the bullshit from Luskin. If Fitzgerald comes out and disproves all we reported, then we’ll eat our crow. Until then, it’s premature. An argument can be made that our [initial] report could have been prepared differently. I absolutely agree. Whether or not I jumped the gun or got facts wrong is certainly fair game for criticism. But without answers, all we have is personal opinion. Most of the people forming those opinions are journalists who should be asking the questions.

You reveal a lot of your methods for getting information in your book. Will that make sources less likely to talk to reporters and editors less likely to run the stories?

It would definitely put me under more scrutiny. I don’t believe that would necessarily have a ripple effect on the media as a whole. We’re in a time when a lot of things are happening in this country, and no one wants to talk about it. Certainly nobody wants to talk about it on the record, so getting that information sometimes, in what I was revealing, [requires] bending the rules. I know other reporters out there have done it. [With] me admitting it and coming out and saying this is what I did, I would expect editors down the road to put me under a microscope, and I absolutely welcome that. Right now we have reporters embedded with the White House, Democrats, Republicans. I think the rules of journalism … I’m not saying break ’em, but if it’s for the public good, bend ’em a little bit. For me, it was a matter of ego, scoop, and that. Now it’s a matter of really just getting to the truth and reporting it.

What effect has publishing the book had on you?

With the situation with Karl Rove, I wrote this story that has caused a firestorm. The difference between what I do now as a reporter and what I did then is that my editor is involved in every part of the process. So, on one hand, yes, because [my editor] knew I was a lightning rod and that I come with baggage, I get what I guess you could call special attention. But I’m happy he’s involved as much as he is, because it actually makes me feel more comfortable. I reported those stories [on Rove] knowing I’ve got a witness, that there’s somebody involved in the whole process in regard to checking everything out. Ultimately, it actually makes me a better reporter.

So before, you weren’t being ridden so much by your editors?

Let’s face it; we had the California energy crisis and Enron, the two major stories I talk about in my book, and nobody was willing to go on the record. Here you had explosive information out there and people being lied to, and basically I [asked], “How far am I willing to go to get this story?” At that point I was willing to go the distance, to cross ethical boundaries in order to get to the truth. I don’t recommend people doing that, but I do think there comes a time when a reporter is faced with that question.

Do you think the convictions of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling will cause more questioning regarding the Bush administration’s credibility, given their ties to one another?

What’s really sad is that the Enron saga has at this point really floated under the radar. Other than the announcement of the convictions, it was big news for a very short time. I’m very critical of the mainstream media, having worked in it. I don’t believe they’re providing a real accurate, in-depth look at what’s going on. At this point, what’s going to happen is nothing. You’ll never hear another sound until they’re sentenced. Trying to link the Bush administration to Enron has pretty much faded away. It’s become old news. Also, Democrats are certainly not entirely innocent. They were more than willing to take money from Enron. This isn’t a partisan issue.

A large part of your book is also about your addiction to cocaine and alcohol and overcoming that. Are you ever concerned that your addiction will manifest as an addiction to breaking stories?

It definitely does still. Part of the reason is, when I break a story, I hope that I will — I’ll [paraphrase] Dick Cheney here — be welcomed as a liberator, that people will have flowers, chocolates and welcome me with open arms.

Has that happened?

The opposite happened. It feels like I’m fighting insurgents right now. I still have that feeling where I need an immediate gratification. But instead of going for it, I slow down and do things differently. So right now, with the Karl Rove story, what’s different is that I worked on the story meticulously. My editor knew who the sources were. I had hoped that this would be my sign of a comeback, in a sense. While that hasn’t happened, I haven’t been going to that place where I used to get defensive and worry. Man, I still want the scoop, and I definitely get a rush off of a good story. Yeah, I’m addicted to it. But the behavior is different. I’m addicted to the job but I don’t behave like the addict that I was. I wrote this book to give people a behind-the-scenes look at what makes me tick and why I did what I did. By being honest about that, it was, for me, about taking responsibility.

You scooped yourself.

Exactly. And now, when people try to use my past as a way of discrediting me, I can say, “Hey, that’s old news. I wrote the book on that. You’re not revealing anything new.” Sometimes you’re out there alone, and that’s just part of the job. A handful of people go beyond the usual suspects — the spokespeople and others — to get information. That’s why I’m so critical of the mainstream media and why people are not getting the truth. I know that eventually there will be an announcement [regarding] Karl Rove. I’m confident, and so are my editors, that once that indictment is unsealed, the date and everything will reflect what we reported.