In Kerrey’s angry diatribe against Fox News he made it sound as if Fox was betraying an agreement with Richard Clarke. If that’s the case, then Fox has made a mistake. While morally I see nothing wrong with it, ethically journalists are bound to such arrangements. However that doesn’t seem to be the case. Here is what the preamble to the Clarke backgrounder transcript says:

The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News’ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution… [Emphasis mine.].

In other words the agreement to keep Clarke’s comments “on background” applied to the White House, not to Clarke. Kerrey makes it sound like this was grossly unfair and unbalanced to Clarke, but it was the White House that had the expectation of confidentiality and so if they choose to waive it that’s their right. Indeed, Clarke’s own comments confirm that Clarke himself didn’t feel like he was speaking for himself but for the White House. So the release of the content of that briefing didn’t betray Clarke at all. But maybe I’m reading this wrong.