I thought I’d weigh in on this little bit that’s been in the news lately. If you’re not aware, reporters are being tried and jailed for contempt of court for not turning over sources that informed them that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative.
First of all, let me say I was extremely pissed that someone in the administration leaked this information, threatening the life of someone who is performing a high-risk task trying to keep my country safe. The administration shrugged it off, when they should have launched a full-scale investigation as to who did this and why. For whatever reason it was done, the admission is tantamount to conspiracy to murder as the moment her cover was blown, she was at risk.
Journalists have long had the cherished right to protect their sources, and I respect this right and wish it to continue. It is a vital part of whistle-blowing. In our system of checks and balances, the media are the unwritten element which balance any corruption in our government or in private business.
In this case, though, I agree with the courts that the source should be revealed so they can be charged. My logic is this: if you have a source that reveals something unethical and/or illegal is occurring, they should by all means be protected. If a source is not accomplishing anything with their information other than committing a crime, they should be revealed.
Otherwise, you leave a giant loophole. If you allow the media to protect sources when they are committing crimes, then you open the door to anyone with classified information who is for some reason willing to divulge it (angry at boss, hates the current U.S. policy, wants to make a media distraction, etc.) just handing it over to the media. Whammo, they are protected from ever being identified!
Bobby, I think the case deserves some more reflection but off the cuff I’m inclined agree with you. I understand that the journalist wants to protect her integrity, and indeed the media in general needs for people (read: potential sources of information) to trust them in order for them to do their jobs. But on the other hand, there is such a thing as taking things too far.
Look at it another way. If a journalist manages to get drug smugglers to provide an interview and the journalist files a report on the inner workings of a drug ring, while it would be compelling journalism, if the reporter refuses to disclose the names of these people (if asked by the proper authorities), then the reporter would be guilty of aiding and abetting criminals and could not expect to hide behind the freedom of the press guarantees of the US Constitution.
That’s a more clear example but the real question is, where do we draw the line. I’m not sure I know yet.
July 7, 2005 @ 2:49 pmWell, see, it’s funny. There I’d actually disagree with you. It’s vital for journalists to be able to report on fringe activities that are considered unethical or illegal. If every time a journalist reported on a group or individual engaged in illegal activities they turned over all their information, no one would ever come clean.
What I have issue with in the Plame identity case is the actual act of giving information to the journalist was illegal. In my opinion, a reporter does not have the right of confidentiality regarding a crime. Does that make sense? In other words, it’s ok to tell a journalist about a crime and remain anonymous, it’s not ok to tell a journalist and thus *commit a crime* and remain anonymous.
Maybe it’s splitting hairs, maybe it’s where the line should be drawn. *Shrugs*. Who knows?
July 7, 2005 @ 3:15 pmI actually disagree with you both. I think the NYT gives a good reason why we should be wary about allowing the courts to erode away protections like this.
In part, “She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.”
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07thu1.html?incamp=article_popular
July 7, 2005 @ 4:18 pmIt’s very much a slippery slope of starting to curtail this long-respected right. My point of contention is:
“a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public” [a well phrased way of stating why this right exists]
How is revealing the identity of a covert operative working to gather information and aid our country’s security “on behalf of the public”?
Revealing corruption, bribes, and the like is understandable. If she had revealed illegal operations by the CIA it would be understandable. But revealing the identity and thus threatening the operative’s safety? It’s outright endangerment with intent to harm.
July 7, 2005 @ 4:23 pmYes, but we have to remember that nothing was published by Miller, so nothing was disclosed. The special prosecutor seems to be fishing for stuff (in general), without actually saying “I’m looking for this.”
Again, Miller never published anything. She was just working on a story about the fact that information was published - originally by Robert Novak, who seems to be just sitting there whistling dixie, nowhere in the sight of special prosecutor.
A quote from the article you linked, “She will serve up to four months in a nearby prison for refusing to divulge the identity of a source who talked to her about Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent outed by unknown administration officials in 2003 because her husband had criticized the White House.”
I agree that there are possibly _some_ circumstances where it _might_ be appropriate to divulge information when there is a specific charge (though I don’t agree it should be provided on a silver platter before the request is asked), where the source is required to be exposed - but ONLY in rare moments.
One question. Would Deep Throat have leaked what he knew, if he didn’t think his confidentiality was going to be maintained?
July 7, 2005 @ 5:18 pm