Free Press An Embarrassment To Free People

Journalists at Time magazine and NBC News were subpoenaed yesterday to appear before a federal grand jury investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer last summer.

Tim Russert, host of NBC's "Meet the Press," and Time reporter Matthew Cooper were subpoenaed by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. NBC said in a statement that it would fight the subpoena, as did a lawyer for Time.

"Time Inc.'s policy is to protect confidential sources," said Robin Bierstedt, deputy general counsel for the magazine.

...

Under federal law, it is a crime to reveal a covert officer's identity if it is done with the intention of exposing the officer's undercover status.

This has been written about so many times, it's almost silly to write about it. But it's so infuriating that, well, what the hell.

The whole point of protecting confidential sources, even if they're breaking the law, is to encourage people to speak to the press for the public good.

For example, if your government is doing something illegal and it's classified, the idea of "confidential sources" encourages whistle blowers to step forward with information crucial to the transparency of democracy without fear of incarceration or retribution.

But never, ever was the concept of "confidential sources" contemplated to protect felons and encourage them to speak to the press.

I mean, if there was serial killer on the loose in your home town, and that killer contacted the local paper, identified himself, and spoke freely about his crimes, do you think for one second the idea of a "confidential source" applies?

No!

What purpose does it serve? What does it benefit the public? What First Amendment policy does it further?

And the very idea that NBC News knows the identity of a felon, who compromised national security--for no purpose benefitting our society--and continues to report on the Plame scandal--and continues to use terms like "allegedly" or "unknown administration official"--is absolutely appalling.

And it's even more appalling that the only motivation our "liberal" media has for being complicit in a felony crime is continuing "access" to this administration.

And it is a total perversion of the not only the concept of "confidential sources", but of the First Amendment itself.

The First Amendment, the free press, is intended to serve the people and preserve our democracy, not protect felons who are attempting to illegally silence and intimidate critics of the government.

I thought the utter foolishness and laziness, and scandal mongering, and inaccurate reporting during the Clinton years was the most embarrassing era of modern journalism. But these last four years have made the nineties look like a journalism school textbook for a free and professional press.

Comments

[dosali]

What do Russert and NBC have to do with the leak? Wasn't Wilson on Meet the Press when he pissed off the White House, causing a guy named Scooter, to out his wife to a guy named Novak? I don't know who Novak works for but, not NBC.
I get your point Ricky, it's an excellant point. You should be on Channel One every day. The kids need to hear what you are saying.
But I just don't get what NBC is stomping its' feet about.

[ricky]

I don't know, either. But it sounds to me like Tim Russert was one of the journalists contacted by the White House in the outing of Plame.

And, again, since Russert is not just an average journalist, but the NBC Washington Bureau Chief, his claiming "source" privilege makes, quite frankly, all of NBC complicit in a felony crime.

[roxanne]

I got your back, Ricky. But, on this one we're gonna have to disagree. There's a reason why the press doesn't have to reveal sources, as you note. And, while you make a compelling argument that the principle shouldn't apply in this case, I think you'll find lots of media organizations fighting it to prevent THE precident ... which that asshole Ashcroft and other assholes like Ashcroft will take full advantage of the minute they are given the chance.

Hope that makes sense.

[ricky]

Maybe, Rox. And it does certainly make sense.

Though, no privilege--executive, attorney/client, doctor/patient--is absolute. Privilege generally ends where the preservation of that privilege no longer further or benefits the original purpose of that privilege.

For instance, you can't go see your tax attorney and just start chatting about how you killed your wife a few years ago. That's not privileged--unless you killed her for tax purposes.

To me, this is one of those cases where privilege doesn't apply.

I might be wrong. And there certainly is a lot to be said for wanting a blanket privilege and a bright line for any source.

But I don't think that stops the Ashcrofts from going after sources anyway. And more than one journalist has sat in jail on contempt charges even with a big, bright line.