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)
• 
Well, there is one potential bright side to this. The source might be Karl Rove. Maybe he’ll actually get into trouble.
Naaah, probably not.
Very well put, PAD. This is probably the first thing I’ve read on this that actually put into words what I felt.
You have some on the right gleeful because they love to see the mainstream media in trouble, you have some on the left gleeful because they don’t like Judith Miller’s reporting on WMD (and they are willing to break lots of eggs if it gives them a chance to make a Karl Rove Omlet), you have reporters seeming to believe that they are above the law…amazing.
Must… log off… go… on vacation…
Ok, last post before my five hour drive: I imagine there will be some chilling effect, but at the same time, could this be the kick in the pants that the news industry needs to refocus itself and get back to serious, in-depth reporting that justifies the sacrifices many in the current news-o-tainment industry aren’t willing to make? I’d argue that when you know the stuff you’re reporting is crap, it’s hard to lay down for it. I know that the case in question is a serious case, and to be honest, I don’t know if it necessarily right to endanger an active intelligence asset by revealing their identity without being willing to reveal your own, but Time’s response reeks of the response of an entertainment company that played in the serious journalism field and wasn’t willing to deal with the consequences.
I’m sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. These “reporters” should be thanking their lucky stars that they’re only getting cited for contempt and not being put on trial for treason. You do know that what they did is treason, right? Freedom of the Press is important, but not so important that they should be immune to the laws that apply to everyone else. What “public good” came out of revealing Valerie Plame’s name? Who did this benefit other than the Bush administraion, which was looking for a way to strike back at Valerie’s husband for comitting the unbelievable sin of criticizing them? These “reporters” had to know that they were being used as pawns in a game of politics, and they played along willingly… so let them suffer the consequences of doing so.
I’m reminded of something from (I believe) one of Robert Heinlein’s essays, to the effect that he was sure that Time published several facts per year; but that he had personally been on hand for a number of events reported in Time, and not once did what Time reported reflect what had actually happened.
I’ve always taken the newsmags with a largish grain of salt (sometimes accompanied by a margarita), but Time seems to have become the most egregious for inserting editorial comment into their “reporting” (in recent years, even boosting past US News & World Report, IMO). In short, they haven’t gotten any of my money for some time, and this sure isn’t going to help matters any.
What I love are all the blogs and others who blast “the mainstream media” for being liberal. Who owns most papers and television stations? Big corporations (and I say that working for a Gannett paper). I work in sports, but have seen less chasing after Bush and his friends than there was with Clinton and Whitewater, Monicagate, etc. Yet the Neocons still whine about “the liberal media”. I’ve found that the most important thing in the media is not getting your slant in, but getting the dámņëd thing out on time. I would love to see another Woodward and Bernstein attack this administration, but that seems unlikely. Especially since the Washington Post would probably be forced to reveal who Deep Throat was right after the Watergate story broke. There just are very few good investigative reporters anymore.
See, its a double edged sword. If it is indeed Karl Rove who gave up the agents name, it sucks sources are revealed, but its in order to seek out a greater injustice. Alot of us know the guy was dirty, they could never find anything to tag on him because of all this D.C. backscratching. Now we may have his balls in a sling, if he is pointed out as being the guy who let out her name and put her life at risk, I say its a nessasary evil. Just my opinion…
Frankly, guys, I’m a little disappointed. I already addressed the “above the law” aspect of this, and yet two of you immediately say, “The reporters think they are above the law” as if I didn’t address that at all.
Tell me something: Any of you ever drive above the speed limit? Ever? In your life? I’m going to go with “Yes.” Now did you do so because you believed you were above the law? Or did you do it knowing that you were taking a calculated risk, and that if you got nailed by a cop, you were going to have to deal with the consequences and pay the fine?
I’m going to guess that it’s the second one.
Same thing here.
The reporters in question did NOT think they were above the law. How do I know this? Because they both flat out stated THEY WERE PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. If they REALLY thought they were above the law, they would have–I dunno–fled the country or offered vigorous protests. They would have contended that journalists should get some sort of individual break.
They did neither. They were breaking the law, they KNEW they were breaking the law, they were doing so on what they felt was a matter of principle, and they were READY TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, WITHOUT PROTEST.
There is something noble about acting on principle and being willing to suffer the consequences inherent in the legal system in order to protect someone else so the greater good can be served. This “they thought they were above the law” stuff is simply dead wrong, and grotesquely unfair to the reporters in question.
And for the love of God, could we PLEASE save the word “treason” for people who are actually, genuinely trying to, y’know, OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT? That’s becoming more overused than Hitler references.
PAD
Where the #@$& is the loud, sustained outcry that they’re not going after Bob Novak? You know… THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY PUBLICLY OUTED HER?
And now, since PAD disagreed with me on the pørņ publishing requirements, I get to disagree with him on this.
These journalists are being asked to give up a source? By not giving up that information, they are protecting somebody who gave up another confidential source (and by extension, her network of contacts) and these sources are in danger of losing their lives for being revealed.
The journalists were used. They were used to commit a crime, to destroy intelligence assets in a time of war, and they were used by someone in the highest echelons of the United States government. And journalists are protecting this criminal? Screw ’em.
Let me add: I”m a journalist. I’m against forcing real reporters to give up anonymous sources. If Novak’s own colleagues in the press had immediately made it clear that they considered his act of “reporting” to be as appalling as it actually was, maybe folks now wouldn’t be so eager to call for reporters’ balls.
I have yet to decide on where I stand on this issue.
I know the SC ruling seemed to pin things down more toward federal grand juries where this is national security on the line (or some such nonsense).
Here we have a situation where journalists are going to jail, and the bášŧárd who gave Plume’s name out is not.
But you can’t honestly expect me to believe that, should those journalists willingly give up their source, that that source is going to jail. Not if it’s somebody from the White House.
I actually have to agree with PAD on this one. And not because Glenn, Nivek and Scott don’t have a point that I agree with… I do. If it had been my wife that was outed as a CIA agent and her life endangered by some right wing douchebag (as Jon Stewart amusingly calls Novak at every turn), I would have made it my mission in life to get that guy fired and/or killed.
But… the principle is what’s important here, and the principle is, no matter what it was used to do, reporters do not give up their sources. If the principle becomes “reporters do not give up their sources, so ask their boss and/or sponsoring company and *they’ll* do it” than the whole thing loses all meaning.
It’s the freedom of speech thing. You sometimes hate that it’s there, because it allows people to use speech as a weapon for causes you hate, but you have to defend the principle and not the specific usage at every turn.
The state of journalism is pretty messed up these days, and I think this court ruling is a only one symptom of this greater problem. Gallup polls show that currently, only a minority of Americans trust the news, and the reason for this is because of a seemingly endless stream of scandals involving the issue of accuracy and integrity of the media. From reporters of prestigious publications who just blatantly make up facts (or even stories!), to senior journalists who don’t bother to do the basic source-checking required in Journalism 101, “the hits just keep on coming.”
For an anonymous source to be considered to be reliable, one has to have faith in the media organization that cites such a source. Unfortunately, such faith just does not seem to be there anymore, and so, we now seem to be in a situation where if a reporter makes an accusation using an anonymous source, few will now take such accusations at face value. We are now a country of skeptics, and the media, like the government, big business, the church, and other institutions before it, is now feeling the brunt of this disillusionment.
The only person here who should be thrown in jail is the guy who is skating along, blissful in the knowledge that as a favorite son of the administration, he won’t be pursued: Robert Novak. Hëll, Matt Cooper only wrote his article AFTER that áššhëád outed Plame, and Judith Miller NEVER wrote hers. Treason my ášš. Clearly, most of America has no fûçkìņg idea what treason is. Here’s a brief primer:
Benedict Arnold: Treason.
The Rosenbergs (if guilty, and I lean to the side of them being innocent): Treason.
John Wilkes Booth: Treason.
Robert Hanssen: Treason.
Journalist protecting a confidential source: NOT TREASON. Even if it brings down a horribly corrupt administration.
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.
Actually, there’s a big controversy these days about White House “background briefings”. These are brieings that usually take place after the actual press conferences where someone (presumably Scott McClellan, the president’s spokesman) offers to reporters more interesting soundbites on the condition that he will be anonymous. This is not at all because he’s unauthorized to say what he’s saying… it’s simply because the White House realizes that “A senior White House official said off the record…” will sound more to readers/viewers like “the inside truth”, than “Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said today at a press conference…” So in effect, they’re using reporters own confidentiality principle as a tool to more effectively get their talking points out.
But what constitutes a reporter is murky at best, and has since those days gotten even more fuzzy.
Yep. Especially with that “Jeff Gannon/James Guckert” guy.
Maybe the solution is to set up some statutory standards. Not that anyone who doesn’t meet those standards isn’t allowed to report… but that anyone who does meet those standards is afforded some protections akin to what lawyers and doctors have.
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.
Actually, it tells grand juries to go after the corporations.
But yes, it does create a chilling effect for sources… at least in the case of corporate owned media. But I think we all knew by now that corporate media was no longer trustworthy or reliable, and was too much concerned about the bottom line. This just follows in that pattern. Perhaps reporters will now have to change the way they do their work, to ensure that the corporation will no longer have access to their confidential information (as I understand it, Time got access to this info through e-mails the reporter exchanged).
One outstanding question for me is… what the heck is going on with Bob Novak? Judy Miller, who never even revealed the name of the CIA agent, is under threat of going to jail if she doesn’t reveal who told it to her. Novak, who was the first to break the agent’s name, isn’t any under any threat whatsoever. Does the government have ANY explanation fdor this? I mean, I realize the explanation probably is “Novak is a conservative columnist who was helping us out by leaking the name of the wife of a prominent administration critic, so we don’t want him prosecuted” but surely they must have an alternate explanation they can offer to the public? Surely SOMEONE has questioned this?
It may not be textbook, but if you betray someone doing their job to protecting this country for personal, political, or financial gain, your a Tratior. Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that.
>> Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that. >>
We also used to keep black people as slaves, allow children to work in coal mines and prevent women from owning property or voting. Your point would be.
“It may not be textbook, but if you betray someone doing their job to protecting this country for personal, political, or financial gain, your a Tratior. Given that we used to execute people for giving away troop locations, I dont see where this is far removed from that.”
You don’t get it, do you? The people being prosecuted DID NOT give this woman’s name to the public. Robert Novak did. And he is not being prosecuted.
“What I love are all the blogs and others who blast “the mainstream media” for being liberal. Who owns most papers and television stations? Big corporations (and I say that working for a Gannett paper).”
Just because Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice at some point did not prevent it from being a left wing newspaper. Larry Flint owns many magazines that are not pornographic. ATT owns the company that makes my processed cheese spread, yet I can’t use it to call my bookie. The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.
“Frankly, guys, I’m a little disappointed. I already addressed the “above the law” aspect of this, and yet two of you immediately say, “The reporters think they are above the law” as if I didn’t address that at all.”
Just to be clear, I was not talking about the actual reporters in this case, only some of their “defenders”.(One idiot suggested that Bush immediately pardon them which would, among other things, really get the moonbats screaming coverup–not without reason, in this case) Miller and the other guy whose name excapes me have, so far as I can tell, behaved honerably.
Novak is an interesting case. I suspect he gave up his source willingly but the circumstances of the “leak” may not have been enough to justify prosecution. If the source also went after ohter reporters, that would be different. My bet is that Miller and the others are being pressured to show that the Novak source was peddling this story around town.
I’m slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth. granted, I can see why we would want to keep the identity of CIA spies and undercover police officers secret but how do you balance this out with free speech? If we can outlaw the telling of one kind of truth why can’t we outlaw any? Imagine if the military had the power to jail anyone who reported on a new weapons system, or troop movements (I realize that there must be some point where one CAN, in fact, do this–if I got on TV and started giving out the longitude and latitude of a marine convoy on a secret mission to capture A Qaeda leaders I might expect some consequences…but I’d hate to see some blanket law against anything of the kind).
Oh, the irony. The media begged to know Novak’s source. The result of the inquiry is that reporters are being threatened with jail if they don’t give up their source. I agree, it would seem like Novak should also be in trouble. But putting that aside for the moment, I do enjoy the irony of the situation.
In my opinion, there is a balance. I can see PAD’s position. I can also see how there are times when the source should be revealed. I really don’t think a top Republican official will be named, but that is only my guess. The fervor over this, though is quite entertaining.
Iowa Jim
Bill wrote:
“I’m slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth. granted, I can see why we would want to keep the identity of CIA spies and undercover police officers secret but how do you balance this out with free speech? If we can outlaw the telling of one kind of truth why can’t we outlaw any? Imagine if the military had the power to jail anyone who reported on a new weapons system, or troop movements (I realize that there must be some point where one CAN, in fact, do this–if I got on TV and started giving out the longitude and latitude of a marine convoy on a secret mission to capture A Qaeda leaders I might expect some consequences…but I’d hate to see some blanket law against anything of the kind).”
I’ve stated more than once on this blog that I hold freedom of speech to be as important a right as there is, and have come down against any threats to it, such as the flag-burning admendment. But, I have understood that there is one limit to it – releasing confidential information and government secrets, particularly information which could get people killed. And I thought that there were some laws restricting this – this is why, for instance, the government can still black out sections of documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
I guess, personally, I am totally against restricting someone from expressing an idea, no matter how abhorent someone else (including me) may find it. But releasing of INFORMATION – from damaging acts such as, for example, releasing the ATM PIN numbers of all U.S. Senators, or the Fortune 500, or every customer of one bank in Maine, for that matter, to dangerous acts such as releasing detailed schematics for military technology – or the identities of undercover agents – is different, and may, as necessity dictates, be regulated. Does this leave open a possibility of restriction of First Admendment rights? Possibly; and this would have to be strictly guarded against. But allowing freedom of expression to allow absolutely unlimited freedom of revelation is, I think, just too potentially disastrous.
As far as Novak goes – I would be lying if I said that I was completely conversant on all of the facts in this case, but as he is the one who released this agent’s name to the public – and out of no necessity at all of which I am aware – he should be the one at the forefront of any investigation, the first in line to take any potential punishment for recklessly endangering this woman’s life. If he acted out of political favoritism, and is now being protected quid pro quo, that is a disgusting abuse of power.
And now, such disgusting abuses will likely be harder to uncover, with Time Inc. willing to reveal their reporters’ sources. I’m not hardly a fan of Karl Rove, but if the ability of reporters to investigate corruption and crime is weakened, possibly irrepairably, in the effort to remove one political operative, then I have strong doubts that the price is worth it.
(Or, to take the long view, even if somehow the whole Bush Administration was brought down by this [not that I’m saying it will be; I’m presenting the most extreme possible outcome here]. Even if an investigation revealed that this group was willing to endanger others’ lives to solidify its own power and attack political opponents [in the most extrere possible scenario here], destroying the reporter-source confidentiality mechanism could prevent any such corruption from being revealed in any future administrations, trading one current corrupt government for many unchecked ones in the future.)
Knuckles: John Wilkes Booth: Treason.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, that and murder.
Btw, I haven’t heard much about this story; can someone tell me WHY Novak revealed Plame’s identity? There is value in concealing the identity of someone who confirms that the President is engaging in illegal activity. What value is there in revealing someone’s identity as a CIA agent?
“And now, since PAD disagreed with me on the pørņ publishing requirements, I get to disagree with him on this.”
Ah, but the difference is, I’m right both times.
If the journalists went to jail in order to protect their source and your response is, “They deserve what they get, screw ’em,” I totally get where you’re coming from. the thing is, the journalists were willing to–and there’s no other way to phrase it–take what was coming to them.
You, Glenn, should be outraged by the same thing as I am, albeit for different reasons. You should be outraged at Time for caving in so that the journalists avoid punishment. I’m outraged Time caved in because of the impact it’s going to have on the entirety of news gathering and the craven example it sets.
PAD
“Just because Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice at some point did not prevent it from being a left wing newspaper. Larry Flint owns many magazines that are not pornographic. ATT owns the company that makes my processed cheese spread, yet I can’t use it to call my bookie. The point is, ownership of a newspaper is not evidence of any bias in and of itself.”
Kinda true. But the fact that all the critics leave out when blasting the media with claims of Lib biase and going on about surveys that show that the majority of reporters voted D is the fact that most of the owners AND the editors that they put in place vote R. You’re right when pointing out that a parent company may have little to do with a newspaper in the day to day of things. But most of the papers and TV news shows are run on the top levels by conservatives put in place by other conservatives. I could be the biggest bed wetting lib of all time and working for a huge newspaper and never get one story printed about how bad Bush is if the editor didn’t want it in the news pages (not counting Op/Ed here.)
Most the claims of biase I’ve seen come from people who are actually saying, “we don’t like what you said about us no matter how true it may have been.” Or they point to Op/Ed shows or pieces. It’s actually kinda rare that you see an enitire “news” or Op/Ed organ (Fox news, Village Voice, Air America) that is just so biased that it screams its biase at you to the point of not being able to not notice it.
And Rupert Murdoch may not be the greatest choice here. Yeah, he has shown a flair for kicking the truth around a bit with Fox News and other things he has done but he has often shown a greater love for money then politics. This is the same guy who started a TV network/channel in China with the Chinese Gov’t that was little more then a propaganda tool for them. Often against the west. Why? Because they would only let him in (and get the $$$) if he played ball their way.
Luigi,
As I remember it, there were questions about why Joe Clarke was given the assignment to investigate the sale of uranaium in Africa. Novak reported that he got it because of his connections, ie. a wife who worked for the CIA.
There is still some question over whether or not there was a crime involved. It is illegal to disclose the identity of a CIA spy, that seems certain, but some say that Valery Plame’s occupation was not a secret. There is also an interesting problem here–assume for the minute that Plame WAS a covert spy and that the administration WAS guilty of putting her life in dager by willy nilly revelations about town designed to discredit her–how could Novak or any reporter rveal this malfeasence without breaking the law?
Luke,
You raise good points. My guess is that Novak’s excuse could be that he was reporting a potential abuse of power by Clarke and that the truth about his wife was an essential part of the story. Calrke says that his wife had nothing to do with his getting the assignment, others disagree. If Novak is charged he will simplay state that he was reporting on how a vital bit of national security was entrusted to an incompetant based on nepotism (NOTE- I’m not saying that this is a valid interpretation of events but it is a defensible one). They would likely not choose to prosecute because if they did Novak could request a lot of people to testify about things they do not want to testify about.
At any rate, if Rove ultimately is the one who did this he will have risked a great deal on very little. If I were him I would not have relied on Time Magazine’s promise to keep its sources confidential–would you? I mean, if this becomes a huge scandle they will sell a hëll of a lot of magazines. Not to PAD but many will be willing to take up the slack.
I love this server error stuff. It’s like being stuck in a bad TV Sci-Fi time warp show. I can see listings on Recent Comments that I can’t find and read, I can post stuff now that doesn’t show up for 30 minutes or more but seems to be there kinda sorta and I can read stuff in threads that I don’t see listed on the Recent Comments board yet. Will somebody please call Q or The Great Machine and tell them to unstick me in time? I’m getting very confused here. maybe a bit timesick too. But it’s ok. This place could use a bit of color.
😉
By not giving up that information, they are protecting somebody who gave up another confidential source
It makes no difference. If the reporters make an arbitrary judgment call in this case and say “Well, I’ve decided that this information shouldn’t be privileged” then no source will ever be certain that their confidentiality will be maintained, and that will create the chilling effect PAD described. Principles are principles; this is the same reason groups like the ACLU defend groups like the KKK, even though their principles are diamterically opposed. You can’t just stick to your principles when it’s convenient and comfortable.
I’m slightly surprised that so many liberals are eager to see Novak jailed for reporting the truth.
I don’t think that’s the case. I think from the very beginning, people wanted an investigation that focused on the source of the leaks; The White House (Novak outright said in his article these were senior administration officials)… not the reporters who the information was given to. I think what people are outraged about now, is that if the prosecutor’s office has decided that the legal burden should be on the messenger, then why the heck is someone who didn’t even reveal the identity being prosecuted, rather than the guy who did? It’s not a case of people wanting Novak to go to jail, as much as being outraged at what appears to be a blatantly politically guided prosectution.
By the way, it’s Joe Wilson who was the CIA agent’s husband. Richard Clarke is a different former administration official who criticized administration malfeasance related to the war on terror.
“Freedom of the Press is important, but not so important that they should be immune to the laws that apply to everyone else”
Then people shouldn’t be free to say what they want under fear of what the law will do to them?
Sounds totalitarian to me.
I agree with whoever it was said that we should set up standards, ways in which we can protect the press. And why would anyone who likes freedom of the press want you to give up your sources? All I know is that if I was an informer for the police, and they revealed MY name, heads would roll (Including mine, if I ratted on the Mafia) Why should press sources be any different? Also, I don’t see how not taking Novack to court is anything other than gross political favoritism. and if this person’s life WAS indangered, then there is a whole host of charges you could haul him up on besides treason. Attempted manslaughter for one. Why should it just be treason?
Novak outed Plame first in his column, but he received the information after the other reporters — the damage had already been done by the time Novak outed Plame. It wouldn’t surprise me if Novak’s source was kept from the public but not the investigation.
For the most part it’s not illegal to pass classified you aren’t entitled to have in the way Plame was outed publicly. The liability goes to he who was entitled to know the classified information but passed it to those who weren’t entitled.
Yeah, Novak was just the one without the integrety to resist using the information (or with the predisposition to do the administration a favor).
“Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, that and murder.”
Tomato, tomahto.
“Novak outed Plame first in his column, but he received the information after the other reporters — the damage had already been done by the time Novak outed Plame. It wouldn’t surprise me if Novak’s source was kept from the public but not the investigation.”
I’m sorry, what? Novak received the information from the exact same source the other reporters did: whomever it was in the White House that was shopping it around (Lawrence O’Donnel’s interesting theory is that it’s none other than Bob’s Big Boy himself, Karl Rove). There is an entire cadre of reporters that know who the source was, as they all received the same information from them. Novak was the only piece of šhìŧ willing to use it to try and discredit Joe Wilson. This, of course, backfired.
Heck. Just for fun, here’s a quote (and a link to the source, if’n I can remember my very feeble HTML):
” The officer’s name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak’s column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson’s account touched off a political fracas over Bush’s use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.”
Washington Post
Here’s one I haven’t read, yet, but will.
Coup D’Etat
From my initial glance, it proves to be interesting, and from a very reliable source. Should be some good reading.
Actually, I’m just loving the whole “finally getting hyperlinks to work” thing.
You, Glenn, should be outraged by the same thing as I am, albeit for different reasons. You should be outraged at Time for caving in so that the journalists avoid punishment.
Well, one could take the POV that it’s not Cooper’s writing anymore, it’s Time’s. Cooper’s writing for them is almost certainly work for hire, in every legal sense. If so, legally it’s Time’s responsibility– and therefore, their choice.
FWIW, it seems that the prosecutor already had the information on who the leaker was (probably from Novak); what he needed was a second witness for an upcoming perjury charge. See here.
This case is covered in a very murky shade of grey.
Did the reporters think they were above the law? Not on some simplistic ‘I’m a reporter, so step back Jack” level, I’m sure. But at the same time, I doubt it escaped their attention that they work for large, powerful organizations, complete with very healthy legal departments more than capable of arguing the fine points of reporters’ shield laws till the cows come home.
And, oh look, those cows were getting pretty close to the barn… According to CNN:
“Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury’s term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.”
They also knew the information they were dealing in wouldn’t exactly displease people in some very influential and powerful quarters.
In the end, Time punks out, and who knows what backroom deals were cut. Time takes a bit of a hit to its reputation among the fraction of the public whose radar this story actually registers on. Some sources will be a little bit more skittish, but they’re still Time freaking magazine and sooner rather than later, the lure of their big name will become too much to resist again and people will rationalize their way into feeling safe dealing with them again.
Nobility isn’t a word I’d use in talking about this affair.
Rumor among reporters isn’t going to get anyone prosecuted. Nobody minds claiming to be the source of information that’s already been leaked, as is my understanding of Novak’s leak. It’s pinning who sprang the initial leak who counts.
“Well, one could take the POV that it’s not Cooper’s writing anymore, it’s Time’s. Cooper’s writing for them is almost certainly work for hire, in every legal sense. If so, legally it’s Time’s responsibility– and therefore, their choice.”
I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. What’s at issue is that they made a bad choice. The wrong and convenient and self-serving choice, at the expense of the entirety of the journalistic community. If NOTHING else, any source who wants to remain off the record would have to be out of his mind to talk to anyone from Time magazine. Were I a Time magazine investigative reporter, I’d be spitting tacks in regards to my publisher’s actions, because I’ve just been kneecapped in my ability to do my job.
PAD
Peter, blame the US legal system for the word treason, because that is what defines the act of revealing an undercover operative’s name as such.
And no one has been “kneecapped.” What they did was illegal, there should be no protection for it.
And as for what James Carter had to say…
“Then people shouldn’t be free to say what they want under fear of what the law will do to them?”
Yes, it’s called “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” or many other examples of the limits to free speech. Nice attempt to twist what I said, but no cigar.
“Yes, it’s called “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater””
Uh oh, NOW you’ve gone and done it…
“Peter, blame the US legal system for the word treason, because that is what defines the act of revealing an undercover operative’s name as such.”
The fact that they didn’t wage war against the US and didn’t attempt to overthrow the government makes me think it’s not. You could try to make the argument that they gave “aid and comfort to the enemy,” but that’s a stretch at best. Plus I have to think that the government would not hesitate to try them for treason if they thought they actually had a case, so the fact that they’re not makes me think it’s a poor argument at best.
“And no one has been “kneecapped.” What they did was illegal, there should be no protection for it.”
Wow. Okay, a third time, which is strange, because I’d think that saying it once would be sufficient and twice would be more than sufficient…
I never said there was “protection” for it. In fact, I explained in detail why offering journalist/source protection was problematic at best, impossible at worst. But there is nevertheless a journalistic code of conduct, if you will, that says you don’t give up a source, even if it means jail time. Period. And when I say the Time publisher kneecapped his investigative reporters, what I’m saying (I can’t BELIEVE I have to spell this out) is that their job has just been made much, much harder. Before this incident, a Time investigative reporter could say with confidence to a source wishing to remain anonymous, “I will keep your identity confidential. You have my word. Even if it means being thrown in jail for contempt, I will not give you up.” That promise now means absolutely nothing, because the source could reasonably say, “Yeah, but your publisher could well turn in my name and all your notes the first time a Grand Jury comes calling. No thanks; I’ll talk to the New York Times.” And for that matter, a NY Times reporter could find himself in the same fix, since a source could say, “Yeah, okay, you’re promising to keep my name out of this, but for all I know, your publisher might cave in the same way that the one over at Time magazine did.” Thus is genuine wrongdoing given just a bit more cover as the chilling effect takes hold.
And please, people, for God’s sake, pay attention to what I’m saying. I really shouldn’t have to explain the same concept three times in two days. Let’s not make it four times.
PAD
“Yes, it’s called “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater””
“Uh oh, NOW you’ve gone and done it…”
You know, I am so freaking tired of addressing this muddy-minded misquote of O.W. Holmes, tied to a court decision that had nothing to do with fires, cries of fires, or theaters crowded or empty, and was in fact attached to a decision that remains one of the most egregious trampling of free speech rights in judicial history, that I don’t even want to get into it.
If the poster wants to do some actual research so he can see his misquote and the repulsive details of the specific case, he’s welcome to. I’ve explained it maybe ten times in the last two years. So I’m sick of it.
PAD
Peter, YES, what is a “reporter”?
WHO is a “reporter”?
Who is NOT a “reporter”?
That is the question.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. How many coded notes will there be now and a lot of “forgetful” reporters testifying “I don’t recall” what source initials “GWB” stand for.
By the way, it’s Joe Wilson who was the CIA agent’s husband. Richard Clarke is a different former administration official who criticized administration malfeasance related to the war on terror.
Matt, you are correct sir, and thank you for the correction. Can’t tell the players without a scorecard.
Actually the need to explain for a third time is an example of one of those things I get disappointed with on these threads. I figure its only right to read what has been said before you post so that you don’t repeat someone, or to make sure you understand before misquoting or replying in error, but way too often someone says “I haven’t read all of the posts so far…” or “I’m not going to read them all but I’m a big fan of…”. Doesn’t mean you can’t second, or third or tenth what someone else said, just that we should try to be sure of what was said previously before posting ourselves.
Richard Clarke also wrote a very fine book that everyone should read entitled Against All Enemies.
Rumor among reporters isn’t going to get anyone prosecuted. Nobody minds claiming to be the source of information that’s already been leaked, as is my understanding of Novak’s leak. It’s pinning who sprang the initial leak who counts.
Seems to me you’re completely walking past everything posted there. Novak published her freaking name. Novak is guilty of undermining our National Security by giving up the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Novak isn’t the leak, but Novak is equally as culpable as the source, as he is the one who actually printed the name. Hëll, whatever the Chicago paper is that went ahead with the article is probably liable as well. To quote directly from the article I cited above:
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative’s identity is a violation of federal law.
Novak is currently sitting back, drinking pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, on the other hand, are about to get ready to drink prison water and get caught in the shower.
Understand this: the sources name isn’t rumor among reporters. This leak actively called at least six different reporters before they found one who was a big enough šûçkášš to print it. And now two other reporters are paying the price for Novak’s willingness to be a Bush Administration running dog.
In fact, I explained in detail why offering journalist/source protection was problematic at best, impossible at worst.
Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don’t see why it’s so problematic. In fact there is currently a proposed federal law on the table:
Vienna, Va. – In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear the cert petition filed by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the Newspaper Association of America is calling on Congress to act on legislation that would protect against the release of confidential source information and allow important news and information to reach the public.
Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) have introduced the “Free Flow of Information Act.” The legislation, H.R. 581 and S. 340, closely follows the U.S. Department of Justice guidelines that have been in place for more than 30 years, and allows testimony to be compelled from a journalist only after non-media sources have been exhausted and such testimony is essential to the investigation, prosecution or defense of a criminal case or essential to a dispositive issue in a civil case. The legislation also expands upon the guidelines by providing additional protection of the identities of confidential sources.
More at:
http://www.naa.org/utilartpage.cfm?TID=NR&AID=7067
Given that most states already have journalist shield laws, I don’t see why it’s so problematic.
Those laws won’t protect them from a federal grand jury, that’s the problem.