OK, so I got a bit carried away. I thought that we were seeing signs of actual insightful reporting from journalists, rather than just the literal act of reporting what someone told them. I waswrong:
Woodward’s testimony appeared to contradict Fitzgerald’s assertion that Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, was the first official known to have told a reporter about Plame.
Woodward came forward a couple of days ago to say that he had been told about Valerie Plame’s position before Scooter Libby discussed it. Assuming he is telling the whole truth (and given the ins-and-outs of this tale that’s not automatic), then clearly Libby wasn’t the first person to know. But that does nothing to change what Fitzgerald said, which is that Libby was the first person known to have told a reporter. How can somebody who wasn’t known to have leaked it change that?
As a bonus, this comes a little later in the article:
Libby’s defense team asserted that Woodward’s story undercut Fitzgerald’s case against Libby, who was indicted in late October on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
What? Fitzgerald says Libby lied. Woodward says that he, Woodward, knew something but wasn’t telling, and suddenly Libby wasn’t lying any more? That makes no sense. If Libby had been charged with being the leaker, then clearly this would make a huge difference. But he wasn’t. So it doesn’t. Unless, of course, the glove fits, in which case the Wookie must go free. Or something.