'Silent' reporters face court
Toolbox
Cox News Service - Published: July 6, 2005
WASHINGTON — Two reporters face a judicial showdown Wednesday over revealing confidential sources that will probably send at least one of them to jail.
Free speech advocates say much more is at stake than the fates of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and TIME magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
If confidential information dries up, the U.S. democracy will suffer because whistle-blowers will be afraid to expose corruption and journalists' role as watchdogs for the public will be diminished, they say.
But others contend that the case has a different, far reaching consequence: solidifying the legitimate need for the government to keep some things secret, including the identities of CIA agents.
Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, said that the case reaches beyond journalism, threatening the public's right to know.
"There is no question the public is going to have less information" if journalists are subject to investigations of this nature when they approach anybody within government who is not giving them the official party line, she said.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan will decide Wednesday whether to send Cooper and Miller to jail for refusing to obey his court order last fall to testify who told them that Valerie Plame is a CIA covert agent. It is against the law to knowingly release the identity of undercover CIA officers.
On Tuesday, federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that Cooper testify before a federal grand jury despite the fact that Time Inc. turned over his notes, e-mails and other documents relevant to the story last week. Fitzgerald also hinted that Miller could face a criminal contempt charge if she continues to defy the court order.
Cooper and Miller argue their reporting would be irreparably harmed without the use of confidential sources. Their argument is supported by more than 50 media companies and organizations.
Kent Alexander, general counsel at Emory University and a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said that the case could have huge implications.
"Even if not by statute, by practice journalists have enjoyed what's akin to an attorney-client privilege for their discussions with sources," he said. "When it comes to any kind of federal investigation, I think people will be a lot less likely to talk off the record about any cases to reporters if they thought their identities would be disclosed."
In some cases this could be a terrible thing, but in others it could be beneficial, he said.
For example, if a confidential source has information regarding another terrorist attack, it would be important to compel a reporter to release the source's identity, he said.
Alexander also said he hopes the courts are careful about waiving any kind of journalist's privilege and should do so on a case-by-case basis.
Steven Aftergood, who oversees the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said that the case has implications for the public, which depends on news organizations for information. If people are afraid to talk to the press, certain stories won't come out, he said.
"The press, at its best, amounts to a fourth branch of government and that is important — particularly in the present environment where the existing checks and balances have been weakened," he said. "If the press is also going to be weakened and told that you had better not challenge government officials using anonymous sources, then we're all going to be worse off."
Many major scandals in U.S. history have been uncovered through confidential sources.
Besides the famous "Deep Throat" source that helped The Washington Post untangle the Watergate scandal, anonymous sources have been responsible for bringing to light America's secret involvement in Vietnam (the Pentagon Papers) and the plans to develop the neutron bomb during the Carter administration. The Wall Street Journal relied on confidential sources to show the illegal accounting practices at Enron.
The Plame and Miller case is the most visible of a growing number of contempt citations issued to reporters across the country. Roughly 30 journalists currently face the possibility of being jailed for refusing to identify sources.
Eunice Moscoso's e-mail is eunicem(at)coxnews.com
ENDIT
Story Filed By Cox Newspapers
For Use By Clients of the New York Times News Service
NYT-07-05-05 1944EDT
42