When Reporters Shield Their Sources
[Guest post by DRJ]
At PowerLine, Scott Johnson posts on the aftermath of the New York Times’ Bush-era exposes of the NSA and SWIFT programs that were based on anonymous leaks. One of the Times’ reporters, James Risen, published a book on these and other topics. Chapter 9 dealt with CIA efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear research and Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., has subpoenaed Risen regarding those revelations. Risen is resisting the subpoena, citing the confidentiality he owes as a reporter to his source or sources.
Johnson links a Washington Post guest post by Gabriel Schoenfeld regarding Risen’s obligation as a citizen to reveal his sources:
“James Risen has an obligation as a citizen to tell a grand jury who provided him with classified information that may have severely damaged our ability to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. This obligation has not deterred voices in and around the press from justifying both the leaking and the publishing of the leaked materials. Risen himself calls his anonymous sources “heroes.” Others, striking a tone of outrage, profess to see no public purpose served by government secrecy in this critical realm: “The message [the Obama administration is sending] to everyone is, ‘You leak to the media, we will get you,’ ” is what Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, complained to The Washington Post. “We had thought that the Obama administration would be different,” writes Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, “a little less likely to want to menace and jail journalists… I find this utterly disappointing.”
But what is utterly disappointing — yet not in the least surprising if one is familiar with the exalted status members of the press like to confer on themselves–is not the subpoena issued to Risen. Rather, it is the assumption held by Nicholas Kristof and many others in the news business that journalists are exempt from the fundamental obligations of citizenship. If James Risen keeps his silence and is held in contempt of court and then sent to jail, that will certainly provoke howls of outrage in the press. It will also be a just outcome, for no one is above the law.”
These incidents are not novel or unusual. For instance, recently Beldar commented hypothetically regarding what might happen in the Faisal Shahzad case if a law enforcement officer leaked information to reporters about Shahzad’s location:
“Being a journalist doesn’t immunize anyone from the consequences of criminal laws. The “shield” is an extremely narrow qualified privilege, and the nature of the privilege is the ability to protect the identity of a confidential source by being exempted from testifying about that particular subject. As a qualified privilege, it can be overcome — ask Judith Miller, or rather, the D.C. Circuit judges who affirmed her contempt sentence to jail — upon a proper showing by the government (basically that the info is really important and there’s no other way to get it). So nothing in the reporter’s shield law says if the reporter breaks a criminal statute, he gets a free pass because he’s a reporter.
Leaking this kind of national security information is certainly a dischargeable offense for any law enforcement officer, and I would be very surprised if it weren’t also a violation of the federal criminal laws. If Obama were serious about national security, he would set about exhausting all other potential sources in order to identify and prosecute the leakers. If no other sources could accomplish that, then it would be time to put the journalist who was tipped to the real hideout location on the witness stand to identify his source, the presumed leaker.”
The Pentagon Papers introduced America to the notion that reporters can expose national secrets. Watergate reinforced that as something exciting, romantic, and a career-builder. But there are and should be consequences to exposing national secrets. In their zeal to break the big story, that’s something reporters have apparently forgotten.
— DRJ
Glad you’ve posted this, DRJ, I read this earlier today. The reporters’ responsibilities as American citizens never seem to occur to them… or if they are aware, they don’t take them seriously.
Its past time that the James Risens of this country are shown “how the hog eats the cabbage”.
GeneralMalaise (3d45b5) — 5/7/2010 @ 5:57 pmSince international norms are conclusive to some, I offer this related item, from today’s news, here in Canada:
The Irony Czar (88eebb) — 5/7/2010 @ 5:58 pmOops, that “irony czar” thing was mine; forgot to change my handle back to its usual.
ras (88eebb) — 5/7/2010 @ 5:59 pmhttp://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1871.html
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:03 pmMr. Risen is fortunate that he is still able to get dinner reservations in NYC, and is not eating off of a tin-tray at some Club-Fed, or worse –
AD - RtR/OS! (044556) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:09 pmwhich is where he, and those he traffics with, belong!
Greetings:
When was the last time anybody spoke about responsibility or duty or, heaven forbid, honor? Not lately, in my experience.
Apparently, Conrad’s novel “Lord Jim” is no longer being taught in our educational institutions. The honorable, if they do the deed, accept the consequences, both negative and positive. This push for “shield” laws, both at the state and federal levels is an abomination meant to shield what thinking people would term subversion.
11B40 (8139c8) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:21 pmI always liked that story.
AD - RtR/OS! (044556) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:23 pmThere are myriad stories right now (“scoops”) that old media could serve up to a large, large customer base. I think the agenda is not so much about freedom of information or protecting sources, but more in line with destroying the country. Just ideologues with press cards, always at work for the cause.
Vermont Neighbor (c8c67e) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:31 pmThe New, Improved, Dick the Butcher:
AD - RtR/OS! (044556) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:47 pmFirst thing we’ll do is kill all the journo’s.
The reality is that the SWIFT disclosure did untold harm to US counter-terrorism efforts and the NYT had a “scoop” that was meaningless in terms of the “public good”. Nothing about it was an abuse of governmental power, nothing about it was or should have been a political issue.
It was just the NYT showing off that they could blow key programs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:47 pmThis video is great! The No Apology Song: http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/05/07/no-apology-song-the-case-for-american-greatness/
The more people that hear this, the better. It’s not too late to wake up Americans so we can bring America back! Let’s spread this everywhere we can!
Dan (403904) — 5/7/2010 @ 6:57 pmThe reporters’ responsibilities as American citizens never seem to occur to them… or if they are aware, they don’t take them seriously.
Because reporters are better than mere American citizens. We’re citizens of the world, the defenders of civilization, the guardians of democracy. Those rubes, especially the ingrates in flyover country who don’t read us, should be taxed so we can continue saving the planet.
/sarc
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 5/7/2010 @ 11:05 pmSo reporters are kind of like lawyers, right?
[sarcasm off, too]
DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/7/2010 @ 11:07 pm