When I was getting my BA in journalism, one of the subjects that came up, naturally, was anonymous sources…a staple of journalism. And what we had drilled into us was: You don’t give up a source. Not for any reason. Not ever. To do so would create a chilling effect, making other sources believe that they dare not approach the media for fear of retribution.
(And as an aside, there’s a difference between anonymity in newspaper articles versus on the net. The latter is people who want to be able to state their opinions without having to attach their names to them. The former are people who, for instance, may see their bosses engaging in wrongdoing and feel they should be stopped, but don’t want to throw their lives or careers away in doing so.)
We knew going in that there was no such thing as journalist/source confidentiality. The reason is that it’s impossible to determine what qualifies as a journalist. Lawyers go to school, pass a bar, they’re lawyers. Same with doctors. But what constitutes a reporter is murky at best, and has since those days gotten even more fuzzy. Is Harry Knowles a reporter? What about me? What if someone is approached by a grand jury because he knows something about a murder and he happens to publish a local shopper, or writes for the PTA newsletter. Does HE claim privilege?
So we knew going in that there’s no mechanism of law to protect journalists should grand juries come calling. Some people claim that journalists are acting like they’re above the law. Wrong. Journalists are taught that the law affords them no protection. If you’re asked about a source, you clam up, and if it means going to jail, then you go to jail, because that’s the job you took on and that’s the way it goes.
I know this. All reporters know this. And Time Inc. sure as hëll knows it.
It was painful enough watching the media be the government’s lapdog post 9/11, but this latest development–in which Time Inc. is knuckling under to grand jury pressure over revealing sources, even though the reporters themselves were ready to do time under a contempt citation rather than give up their sourcess–trumps it all. It sends a frightening double-edged message: Sources, beware. And grand juries, go after reporters. In serving its short term needs, Time has guaranteed long term problems. Because when the Fourth Estate stood firm and united, there was little point to courts trying to pry info out of reporters. They knew it was a waste of time. Now they know there’s cracks in the foundation. So Time has ensured MORE problems for reporters, rather than less.
I know I personally will never be buying another copy of Time magazine. That’s not out of a sense of desire to boycott, but simply because I’m going to assume from now on that whatever stories Time covers, there will be sources who won’t dare go to them, so why bother getting incomplete coverage?
PAD
(PS–Ignore the signature at the bottom. I, Peter, posted this. I posted it while working on Kath’s computer and forgot to log out of her Movable type account and move into my own.)
(Should be fixed now — GH)
• 
Anyone ever seen Shattered Glass?
“G. Gordon Liddy blast Mark Felt for behaving unethically and having people take his opinion seriously.”
Yeah, ’cause G. Gordon is Captain Ethical….
“but if he is out to get Rove, for some reason, I don’t think Rove is losing any sleep over it.”
Absolute worst case scenario for Rove: He gets convicted, Bush writes a Pres. pardon, end of story.
I don’t really see how you can come up with any other idea at the end of this debate then: Reporters should protect their anonymous sources, if for no other reason then, if you don’t, you will never, ever have a story with any kind of inside info. (not to mention, you won’t have anymore use for all those cool voice changing things that they use when they interview an Anonymous Souce on 60 Minutes) If you say that reporters have to revel sources to a Grand Jury, then how long before they have to reveal them to anyone who asks?
As for attacking Mark Felt: He revealed the most corrupt administration in American history. Whether he did it for personal or political reasons: this is one of those situations where the ends justify the means. It would be like if someone had killed Hit…..I mean brought down Boss Tweed for personal reasons.It doesn’t matter why they did it, they did it, what more do you want?
Yeah, ’cause G. Gordon is Captain Ethical
Exactly. He actually had the gall to say that Mark Felt acted unethically! Excuse me?
As for attacking Mark Felt: He revealed the most corrupt administration in American history. Whether he did it for personal or political reasons: this is one of those situations where the ends justify the means.
I think history will probably always have mixed opinions on Deep Throat. In the end, he did the country a great service in taking down Nixon, but his methods and his motives will always be questionable. Still, he stands as a testament to the fact that anonymous sources are sometimes necessary for reporters to do their job right.
Plus, watching Buchanen sputter on, trying to blame Pol Pot’s massacre on Felt was really funny.
Here’s hoping we find another Deep Throat soon.
“In order for Ann Coulter to be considered a reporter, she’d actually have to report on something. Writing books on how she wishes all liberals would die is not reporting.”
that was the funniest sentence ever!!!!
joe v.
There was an excellent letter over in Poynter MediaNews (a journalists’ forum):
“And I could be mistaken, but I think there are certain circumstances in which doctors (frequently psychiatrists) can be compelled to give up their confidence.”
PAD:
“I’d be interested to know the specifics of that.”
Like most evidentiary privileges, this exception to therapist/patient privilege is largely a matter of state law — on the occasion it arises in federal court, it’s federal common law.
California, for example, has an exception to the therapist/patient privilege in its Evidence Code: “There is no privilege . . . if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger.”
There are similar exceptions in about half the states, as I understand it. Under this exception, a therapist can’t get into trouble for revealing such a communication.
Counselors/psychologists/etc are mandated reporters that are ethically and legally bound to report cases of abuse directed at those under the age of 18, regardless of whether it is reported by the victim or a 3rd party. Easy way to remember boundaries of confidentiality is when minors are involved in abuse or when the clinician has a reasonable belief that a client intends to harm self or others.
Interesting cases come about when a therapist is ordered by a court to compromise that understood confidentiality and it does not meet the previously described criteria. At that point, the professional must look within themselves to decide their course of action. People have been fined and jailed when they refuse to provide information.
The big difference between journalists and therapists is that therapists are required to inform their clients of the limits of confidentiality before they begin work with them…. I wonder what that would look like in the case of reporters. It’d certainly make people more accountable for what they are reporting, though it would also naturally persuade many “informers” not to inform.
I get the feeling he’s a dìçk AND on the Bush payroll directly, actually.
Huh? You also said that …it’s apparently official: Karl Rove needs to be strung up by his balls for treason.
Soooo….The prosecutor who, as far as you are concerned, has proven that Karl Rove is guilty of treason is also a lackey of the Administration??? How does that work?
But the good news is, it’s a win/win situation for Bush haters–if Rove goes down it’s a case of Corruption From The White House. If he doesn’t…IT’S A COVER-UP!
Just to toss out some speculation…the law says you can’t reveal the identity of an undercover operative…but what about one whose identity has been blown? I mean, none of us here are in any danger from talking about Ms. Plame’s job because it’s all a fait accompli at this point. Suppose one or both of the reporters discovered her occupation on their own, using good old investigative techniques, and used Rove and other sources to confirm what they knew. It then becomes a lot harder to convict anyone.
I don’t think the prosecutor is working for Bush… I just think he’s a careerist who is out to make a name for himself by showing these uppity reporters who’s boss.
But the good news is, it’s a win/win situation for Bush haters–if Rove goes down it’s a case of Corruption From The White House. If he doesn’t…IT’S A COVER-UP!
Duh. If you do something wrong, you shouldn’t be able to come out of it smelling like a rose.
Suppose one or both of the reporters discovered her occupation on their own, using good old investigative techniques, and used Rove and other sources to confirm
They didn’t. Novak has stated the White House sources came to him, and name-dropped the CIA agent, ostensibly as a means of explaining her husband’s involvement in the Africa/WMD inquiry.
Ted Rall has an interesting idea: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/karlroveworsethanosamabinladen;_ylt=AnlQ26kBl95As_ukW6C9H1ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
(I have NO html skills. None. My apologies)
How does that work?
You’re not using the Jerome Maida Path of Logic, are you?
The Bush Administration has sat on this leak of information for two years.
Now, you have a federal prosecutor who goes after a couple of journalists, but not the Republican columnist?
The leak comes out of the White House but we’re not focusing on that?
Yeah, like I said, Rove should be strung up by his balls, but it probably won’t happen because Rove is a Bush lackey.
If the prosecutor doesn’t go after the initial leaker (Rove, or if it isn’t him, whichever dipshit in the White House left themselves open to be flayed alive), then he deserves to be strung up as well.
“Yeah, like I said, Rove should be strung up by his balls, but it probably won’t happen because Rove is a Bush lackey.
If the prosecutor doesn’t go after the initial leaker (Rove, or if it isn’t him, whichever dipshit in the White House left themselves open to be flayed alive), then he deserves to be strung up as well.”
Craig, you are absoulutely delightfully un-liberal in your advocation of violence. pity you weren’t around for Nixon. Ahh….you would have lit him up. as it stands, your point is true. Whoever would do something as inane as reveal a CIA agents identity, thus placing them at great risk, AND totally destroying any use they could be as agents, because, hey, the entire frickin’ WORLD knows what she looks like! way to doubly screw your country, Dubay!
Serious question, is there a difference between a “columnist” and a “reporter”.
Last I saw, Novak is a columnist, while the other two are reporters. Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?
“Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?”
Well, Ann Coulter is a columnist, so I’m guessing no.
“Are columnists giving opinion required to be factual or honest?”
not at all, but then, neither are journalists. the only thing they’re required to do is sell papers and ad space. if their credibility endangers sales, they’ll be fired. the only consistent bias in the media is towards money.
Craig, you are absoulutely delightfully un-liberal in your advocation of violence.
Well, when you spend most of your time being called unpatriotic, cowardly, and many other things by Republicans because you don’t like seeing American soldiers getting killed in Iraq, you just want to see them get their own for once.
“Well, when you spend most of your time being called unpatriotic, cowardly, and many other things by Republicans because you don’t like seeing American soldiers getting killed in Iraq, you just want to see them get their own for once.”
I wasn’t complaining. There are more than a few people in the administration I would like to see pistol-whipped myself. Still, what we liberals need to do, like a couple people have already said, is to focus on real issues, and force the matter with the conservatives. See, if we do that, then the right-wingnuts (great phrase whoever said that) will not listen, but the independent/middle of the road/undecided voters will listen. And lets face it, the right wing isn’t gonna vote for us no matter what. We need to focus on getting through to those who aren’t radicals. On both sides. You know, we spent hours trying to convince X-ray that we were right. Have we spent that much energy or thought trying to convince the undecideds or less radical republicans on here? I mean, when they post, we respond, but there isn’t (as far as I have seen) that same, overall push that there was with X.
That is indicative of the main problem with the democratic party today. We will waste hours arguing with Ann Coulter, but no time arguing with William F. Buckley. We need, we MUST for the ver survival of the Democratic party, to focus on those who we can sway. If we don’t we will self-destruct, and there will be another “Era of Good Feelings” with only Republicans running the show. And that will be bad.
PAD: There is almost no such thing as an absolute privilege. Penetrating doctor-patient privilege is the easiest thing in the world. I can obtain with trivial effort the hospital records of someone who was in a wreck to prove, for example, that he was drunk when he wrecked. Other privileges are also mutable. Spousal privilege dissolves instantly if the case involves harm to the couple’s children. In most jurisdictions, privileges are a matter of case law rather than statutory; this means that the courts that are interpreting the privileges are the same organizations that created them in the first place, and thus have the authority to carve out exceptions where needed.
You’re right that attorney-client privilege is much, much harder to penetrate, but that’s because, at least in criminal cases, it’s constitutional rather than statutory. We could abolish every other privilege in the evidence code, but that one would still have to exist because it’s so crucial to the right to counsel. Even that is voidable depending on the case under investigation, however. As much as I try to avoid cause celebre legal cases, the Aruba investigation in the news is a good example. The suspect’s father is a lawyer, and thus their discussions would ordinarily be a privileged communication. However, since the discussion is claimed to be a discussion of a future crime (hiding the body), there is no privilege. Once you involve your lawyer in your criminal plans, the lawyer ceases to be your legal counsel and becomes your co-conspirator. Even if your lawyer (unlike the Aruban dad) does not actually become a participant in the crime, under certain circumstances the lawyer may be positively obligated to rat you out– the general rule being that an attorney is not obligated to warn law enforcement that his client is about to commit a crime, but is obligated to warn law enforcement if his client is about to commit a crime that would phsyically harm someone. (That, if I recall correctly, was the American Bar Association formulation, but every state bar has its own take on that problem. The perjury issue you mentioned is actually really tricky.) And of course, once a case is over, if the client claims he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, everything in the lawyer’s file becomes part of the court record.
Sorry to have to report this awful disaster:
Crawford, Texas (not AP) – A tragic fire this morning destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. The fire began in the presidential bathroom, where both of the books were kept.
Both books were destroyed in the fire. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated as he had almost finished coloring the second one.
I suggest we start a collection to replace the losses in this fire. Send your nickels and pennies to Halliburton Corp., which has received the no-bid contract to do the reconstruction.
BB: I’ll donate the copy of Hop on Pop if you are willing to take care of The Pokey Little Puppy.
I always thought the system we had for journalistic privilege worked fine….writers understood there was no privilege, yet were willing to go to jail to protect their sources. It used to be called journalistic integrity, and publishers were ready to stand behind, and even maybe join their staff in the pokey, to support it.
Now, we have publishers owned and controlled by CEOs and shareholders, most of whom may never even been published in high school. It makes me wonder how much the fear that they, as owners of the sources of the stories, might be asked to spend time in prison, is behind this current rolling over submission for the government.
So long as journalistic integrity was present, there wasn’t any real risk of a government imposed chill on news sources. If those sources now fear exposure because the publisher, not the news writer, is going to release the clues to their identity, or maybe even just outright ID them, the entire concept of a whistle-blower evaporates. And that’s a Very Bad Thing for you and I, the little individual person.
K-Nuck. Are you kidding? I wouldn’t donate the dollar on my taxes to the guy.
He lost both copies of the Hungry Little Catepillar?
The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?
“The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?”
JK Rowling
What the hëll, he IS the president. I will send him my copy of Green Eggs and Ham, and (just to give him something to think about.) The Loralax.
“The problem with your reasoning, James, is that who sells more books today: Ann Coulter or William F. Buckley?”
Coulter. Good point Den, but Buckley doesn’t do all that bad either.
And the point shouldn’t be: “who sells more books.” It should be: who is more respected by more people?” Hëll, I know a good few fairly radical Republicans who think Ann Coulter is screwier than a French whørëhøûšë, and nuttier than squirrel plaque. To see my whole opinion on this see my post in “Hold your Breath,” which is longer and (I think) quite well written. But too sum it up, the reason Bushes numbers are so low is everyone but the radicals have left.
And the point shouldn’t be: “who sells more books.” It should be: who is more respected by more people?”
And this little liberal can tell you first hand – I respect Buckley.
I try and read his opinion pieces every week through Yahoo. And, while I’ll readily admit that sometimes the language he uses is from a bygone era, he never comes across as mean, terse, or outright crazy.
Unlike, Ann Coulter, whom I never read because I cannot even get past the titles of her opinion pieces without wanting to smack her.
From Editor & Publisher:
To Scott Bland: These particular reporters don’t meet even your standards for treason, because they didn’t blow anyone’s cover. Bob Novak, arguably, did, and perhaps he should be held accountable. What these reporters did was answer their telephones, receive interesting information, check it out, and decide not to publish it. Ooh…very scary indeed.
Obviously, I don’t know whether Rove is the source, but I think it would be nice if someone from the New York Times were to ask him and several of the other likely sources if they would be willing to say, purely as a matter of conjecture, that if they had been the source they would release the reporters from their obligations to honor that confidentiality. The answers would be interesting, and if the correct person agreed, perhaps then the reporters could testify with a clear conscience – or even say, “Well, when my source was asked about the matter on July__, he refused to release me from that obligation.” The information might well be conveyed pretty efficiently without exactly betraying a confidence.
And the point shouldn’t be: “who sells more books.” It should be: who is more respected by more people?”
Maybe that’s the way it should be, but the truth is, Coulter is the one rallying the faithful while Buckley is considered a wise but boring old fart who isn’t going to get anyone fired up at the polls.
I am heartened that all but the wingnuts are realizing how harmful Bush has been to this country, but as I said before, the Democrats aren’t doing much better right now. If they nominate another douchebag like Kerry or Gore and the GOP nominates another neocon extremist (and they will, because whether you want to admit it or not, that’s who controls the party), then we’ll have four more years of disaster on our hands.
“Hëll, I know a good few fairly radical Republicans who think Ann Coulter is screwier than a French whørëhøûšë, and nuttier than squirrel plaque.”
I’d bet you that the French whørëhøûšë is a helluva lot cleaner…
The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties. It is an article of faith among liberals that Republican presidents are stupid. Eisenhauer was dumb; Reagan was an “amiable dunce”; Ford couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time; the present occupant of the White House is a chimpanzee-like moron. (An exception to the rule was Nixon, widely viewed as bright, but evil). Jokes like these serve two excellent functions: 1., they reassure those who dislike Bush of their superior intellect, and 2. they assure those who voted for Bush that those who voted for Kerry consider them simply too stupid to reach the rarified intellectual standards of Kerry voters.
“Eisenhauer was dumb”
It really doesn’t help to spell his name wrong.
“The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties.”
All joking aside, this is a fact of life. I really don’t recall the republicans pulling any punches on Clinton, or Carter, or Johnson, or FDR for that matter. Actually, this site is one of the places where you will find lots of people willing to defend both sides. I saw on some thread a couple weeks back a briliant listing of all the accomplishments of all the Republican presidents. On this site there are people who are radical liberals, moderate liberals.middle of the road, Moderate conservatives, and (unless they are insanely rude to the point of Disemvoweling) Radical Conservatives.
What you are doing is making it sound like the only people who engage in attacks on the intelligence or personality of the president is the liberal side. The Conservatives have a long and storied history of attacking presidents, right back to when John Adams attack good ol’ TJ.
Get over it already. If you want, I can dig up old G. Gordon Liddy scripts, Ann Coulter columns, and Rush Limbaugh trascripts saying nasty things about virtually every Democratic president, including Coulter’s attacks on Jimmy Carter.
that said, perhaps you would like to contribute to my fund to buy Bush a complete collection of “The Bearenstien Bears?”
The coloring book joke made the rounds about Spiro Agnew in the sixties.
And your point is?
Besides bìŧçhìņg about liberals, that is.
People, it looks like Rove was the leak. Newsweek is reporting that Rove was the creep that did so.
I wonder if Bush authorized the leak.