Remember Steven Hatfill? The guy whose life was destroyed by accusations that he was the anthrax mailer? Probably you don't remember that a Federal judge found that "there's not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with" them. The investigation made headlines and planted hordes of reporters snapping candids everywhere he went. The vindication has passed almost entirely unnoticed, leaving this guy's life in ruins.
Now the reporter is refusing to release her sources, claiming that she can't remember who told her, and she's thrown away her notes. I hesitate to accuse another journalist of lying but this seems most, most unlikely unless she has suffered a traumatic brain injury in the interim. You don't forget the name of the person who gave you the biggest scoop of your working life; getting a really juicy tidbit that you can break is one of those moments of which you always have crystal clear recall. You also tend to keep all of your notes on a high profile piece, precisely because you might get sued.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is standing behind her, expressing outrage that the judge has ordered her to pay $5,000 for every day that she refuses to release the names of the ten sources she used for those stories. I'm afraid I have no sympathy. I think the general presumption that journalists shouldn't be forced to release their sources is a good one. But this seems to have given many journalists the idea that we are some sort of sacred priest class, above the laws that govern the lives of the hoi polloi. Who on earth do you think you are, Miss Thing?
The relatively wide latitude given journalists on revealing sources is there to serve a social good, not our careers. In the case of the Plame case, I have some sympathy for the reporters; it is generally a good thing that public officials think that they can leak without having their names revealed. If they didn't, we'd know a hell of a lot less about how critical decisions, particularly in intelligence and foreign policy, get made.
But I don't see any equally compelling interest in protecting prosecutorial leaks. Prosecutors are not inquisitors; they are supposed to try their cases in public court, or not at all. Selective leaking of investigation details in order to put pressure on targets, or taint the jury pool, are abusive. (Naturally, they were Eliot Spitzer's favorite trick.) I can think of no reason to help journalists and law enforcement try their targets in the court of public opinion.
I agree with your comments as generalized, but there's a bizarre twist in this particular case. The judge evidently believes her story that she can't remember who gave her the story, so the judge wants the names of all her sources (on all topics) that she can remember so they can be asked if they were the source for her story. That seems a tad overbroad to me.
I'm pretty sure I saw this story on Fox news at some point (people put it on in the breakroom), the network that was so outraged by CBS's reporting of George Bush's military service. I don't think huge 24-hour new stations should be allowed to plead innocence just because another news carrier puts something out. If Dr. Hatfill were to receive $100 million dollars from all the news outlets that invested so much time defaming him, I believe the media would be more responsible in its reporting. With the ease of getting ideas out into the world, we have to decide what level of defamation and humiliation will be tolerated. I don't see how the expectation that people by responsible for what they produce could be seen as a freedom of speech issue.
"The judge evidently believes her story that she can't remember who gave her the story, so the judge wants the names of all her sources (on all topics) that she can remember so they can be asked if they were the source for her story. That seems a tad overbroad to me."
It's what I'd do if I was a judge in the case. Fine I believe you, so why not give over every source and we'll figure out who's responsible because we're such nice guys? The point being is that she'll think extra hard this time and give the names out, rather than revealing all of her sources.
Nice post, Megan.
"The judge evidently believes her story that she can't remember who gave her the story, so the judge wants the names of all her sources (on all topics) that she can remember so they can be asked if they were the source for her story.
That seems to me like the judge does not believe her story, and has decided that the unpalatable alternative he is offering might help her remember.
While I do sympathize with reporters and the possible harasment they face from the government in a case like this. I would also want more responsible reporting. Jayson Blair. Judy Miller. People like that don't deserve protection. We've had seven years of the media covering up for war criminals. Until we get a more responsible media, no reporter shield for them.
I agree with Joe Klein: punish people who I dislike, enact a law to protect people I do like!
I think journalists should institute a new policy of burning sources who (provably) deliberately lie to them. It's one thing to protect the flow of information to the public, and quite another to allow yourself to become a vehicle for anonymous smears.
If a source deliberately lies to you in order to get you to publish something false, I say write a story about it and use the bastard's name.
I'm actually less sympathetic to the Plame reporters than our hostess. I'll get back to that in a minute.
I like southpaw's way of thinking, but I'm not sure it goes far enough. (It's my vague recollection that some news organizations may actually have a policy not unlike what he suggests, but maybe I'm just making that up.)
There's at least three kinds of unnamed sources:
1) People who know about and want to help uncover real skulduggery in high places.
2) People who want to talk candidly, whether about a government policy, legislation, a fellow person in the news, etc., but would not do so if their comments got back to them.
3) People in positions of relative power wanting to use the cloak of anonymity for their own purposes.
I have no problem with motivation No. 1, and little problem with No. 2 as well. If I'm a reporter profiling Congressman so-and-so, and one of his colleagues wants to tell me what he REALLY thinks about the Congressman but (understandably) doesn't want to be quoted by name, I think the anonymous comments are perfectly acceptable so long as not libelous.
No. 3, of course, should be resisted at all costs.
I believe there has been some attempt to indicate willingness to burn sources not only when they lie, but also when they act in bad faith of one kind or another. But how you actually implement that could be awfully tough to sort out.
I think the Plame leakers fall into my category No. 3. The problem is, how do we know for sure in advance that they weren't category No. 2? The ostensible point of the leak was to warn reporters that Joe Wilson wasn't all he was claiming to be.
In the Hatfill case, it was probably No. 3 as well.
Ideally, (as in Plame and Hatfill) reporters might be careful to assess the merits of the claim against the potential harm done before publishing or broadcasting it. But I'm wary of that as a pat solution, too. The NY Times tamped down its Bay of Pigs leak, for fear in part of not harming national security. JFK reportedly later wished the leak had been big enough to blow the operation's cover and thereby prevent it from occurring because of the fiasco it turned out to be.
And then there's the whole 24-hour news cycle and instant information and fear of someone else getting the eyeballs instead of you.
DSD,
What was Richard Armitage's purpose?
Skullberg:
"What was Richard Armitage's purpose?"
Two answers.
1) I said at least 3 categories of anonymous sources; there may be others I haven't listed. My recollection is that Armitage claims to have "accidentally" gossiped about Plame; accepting him at face value for the moment, we define Category No. 4, the leaker is a clueless gossip, or more broadly, a self-aggrandizing [insert your favorite pejorative noun here]. Of course, that motive may well be found among all varieties of leakers to a greater or lesser extent. [NOT "all leakers."]
2) As I'm sure you're aware, the conventional analysis has been that the real reason for the Plame leak was to punish Wilson by outing his wife. That falls under my Category 3).
And then there's the whole 24-hour news cycle and instant information and fear of someone else getting the eyeballs instead of you.
That's where I think there should be some accountability. It's the snowball effect that can be so devastating. And all the networks just hide under the "so-and-so is reporting" tactic. If harm can be shown (and in this case, I think that it can)everyone who was in on the dogpile should be held accountable.
all the networks just hide under the "so-and-so is reporting" tactic.
Just for the record, repeating a slander is indeed actionable. "So and so is reporting" is not a defense if you meet all the other elements.
DSD,
I don't buy that this was malicious at all, well not towards Mrs. Plame. I think many people knew who he was, and who his wife was, and thought it was relevant to his credibility.
Richard Armitage WAS the leaker. No one assumes he was doing anything malicious. They just assume that people who confirmed it were.
I've seen no proof of this.
Off sources for a moment, I'd like to point out that the anthrax case also is what's given us the term "person of interest" -- a new category of unregulated targets in criminal investigations!
Time was, someone was a suspect with defined legal rights, or s/he wasn't. Now you can not be a "suspect" but you can be a "person of interest." This new term has become a favorite of police and prosecutors around the country to heap public scorn on targets they don't have enough evidence to actually indict!
Thanks, AG Ashcroft!
DSG,
Just because you first noticed the term during the Plame/Wilson leak controversy, doesn't mean that the term only originated then.
"Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
I've seen no proof that you just aren't throwing out a line and that you know very the leak was motivated by spite.
But, like you, I'm always willing to look at proof ;-) So what have you got?
SoV,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qqa3qrti6FgJ:www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames%3Fpid%3D116511+richard+armitage+leak+plame&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
If you have evidence that Armitage acted out of spite, please share.
Uh, no, I'm asking for proof that you're not just throwing out a line and no very well that spite is a big part of what these people are all about.
Since I asked first, I think you better go first.
And I know that you've got lost of proof; because you'd _never_ pull that old stunt of saying that whatever evidence anyone may have, it's still not enough ;-)
Just like I know that you'd never refuse to answer questions after asking a few of your own, right? There wouldn't be any recent of examples of that, would there ;-)