WSJ: Two Reporters Now Face Prison For Contempt

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 28, 2005 | JOE HAGAN

[OESY]

In a major setback for proponents of the legal rights of journalists, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear the case of two reporters who have refused to cooperate with a grand-jury investigation....

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times correspondent Judith Miller now face as much as 18 months in prison for civil contempt unless they comply with a lower-court order that they cooperate with a government investigation into the leak....

The Supreme Court's decision not to address the case has far-reaching implications for the rights of journalists in protecting unnamed sources from federal investigations. Reporters fear that their ability to interview sources that seek anonymity will be compromised because these sources will fear that the reporters could later be compelled to name them. The government's position has been that reporters shouldn't have special privileges allowing them to impede a criminal investigation.

Others had hoped that the court would take the case and perhaps clarify this murky area of federal law....

Forth-nine states and the District of Columbia either have laws on their books -- or case law precedents -- that shield journalists from revealing sources, and 34 states' attorneys general filed amicus briefs in support of the two journalists.

A U.S. district court judge and a Washington, D.C., circuit court of appeals, however, cited a 1972 Supreme Court case, Branzburg v. Hayes, which stressed that public interest in enforcing the law outweighed the right of reporters who have evidence of a crime to protect their sources. Lawyers for Time magazine and the New York Times argued that the 33-year-old case was outmoded in light of the large number of states that had adopted a privilege in the interim and shouldn't be allowed to override the First Amendment and federal common law....

[bboop]

Yes, anonymous sources are very bad, I think. "No one" can say anything; there are no consequences in it, no courage required, no responsibility owned. And you can use anonymous sources for your own purposes. And journalists are not above the law? aaah, God is on the throne.

[jmaroneps37]

Oh wow, too bad! Hee hee hee hee hee!

[HamiltonJay]

I absolutely agree with this position... there is no reason a reporter can claim special privalege in front of the court.

[Gone GF]

"Can anyone explain to me why it is that Novak wrote the article, but these two face jail time? What am I missing?"

Whether or not Novak is cooperating this makes no sense whatsoever. Sort of similar to the cases where big dealers get off after turning in tiny dealers or users who have nobody else below them to rat on (not that I approve on the WOD anyway).

[OESY]

43 FAKED SOURCES BY ONE COLUMNIST at the Sacramento Bee?


A newspaper investigation of a former columnist for The Sacramento Bee could not verify 43 sources she used in a sampling of 12 years of her work.

Diana Griego Erwin resigned May 11 as she came under scrutiny about the existence of people she quoted. She has denied making up information, but Executive Editor Rick Rodriguez said the Bee should have been able to locate the people named in the stories.


As Neverdock observes:

Main stream media sneer at bloggers, claiming that we are unregulated, out of control and no one checks our work like their editors do theirs. Yet time and time again we find it is MSM who are faking it.


The whole high-horse act needs to be given a rest.

-- Glenn Reynolds, instapundit.com/

[marty60]

So some sleezy Dum for political purposes decides he will slip his fav Leftie reporter , Top Secret info. (illegal) It is printed and guess what more Americans die. do you REALLY thin they should be allowed to hide from an investigation, and protect a criminal.<p. Our country has now reached a point of legal relitivism. The law enforcement agencies have every right in fact a duty to protect America.

[PISANO]

From what I understand those that gave the information to NOVAK have released him from confidentiality by revealing their identities to the authorities.

[HEY4QDEMS]

do you REALLY thin they should be allowed to hide from an investigation

NO. Why don't you try reading my post again.

[YaYa123]

Judith Miller won't fold, but Matt Cooper will squeal like a pig before he goes to jail on principle.

(from an old Washington Post:)
"Who Is Matt Cooper? He's our new media darling, of course -- with quite the Washington pedigree. Cooper is the deputy Washington bureau chief of Time. Before joining Time in 1999 he worked for Newsweek, the New Republic (where he wrote a column called "White House Watch") and the Washington Monthly. He moonlights as a stand-up comedian and is married to Clinton media adviser Mandy Grunwald. "

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and New York Times correspondent Judith Miller now face as much as 18 months in prison for civil contempt unless they comply with a lower-court order that they cooperate with a government investigation into the leak....

Lucy Ramirez could be in a whole lotta trouble now!

[OESY]

Keller Says ‘N.Y. Times’ Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base

In a lengthy memo published on the newspaper’s Web site, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, announced several new policies in response to a recent report by the paper’s Credibility Committee. Among them is a fresh attempt to diversify the Times’ staff and viewpoints, and not in the usual racial or gender ways, but in political, religious and cultural areas as well.

The aim, he wrote, is “to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation.”

The point, Keller wrote, “is not that we should begin recruiting reporters and editors for their political outlook; it is part of our professional code that we keep our political views out of the paper. The point is that we want a range of experience. We have a recruiting committee that tracks promising outside candidates, and that committee has already begun to consider ways to enrich the variety of backgrounds of our reporters and editors.

“First and foremost we hire the best reporters, editors, photographers and artists in the business. But we will make an extra effort to focus on diversity of religious
upbringing and military experience, of region and class."

-- mcgeheezone.com/weblog/

[IronMan04]

Put the screws to these reporters and make them squeal and OUT their Democratic sources.

[jordan8]

The reporters should tell the court to go to hell, and serve their time with pride. Anonymous sources can be misused but secret sources are sometimes necessary when a government acts in secrecy, particularly those times when its secrecy is not the product of necessity but of self-interest.

[Paladin2]

I agree, are they reporters or journalists? We'll see.

[marty60]

I guess you the flame thing made me misundertand you position. sorry,

[mewzilla]

They ain't covering for a Pubbie....

[bray]

Looks like the moral values of some prison are going to drop dramatically!! Should we send them a soap on a rope??

Pray for W and Our Iraq Winning Troops

[Lancey Howard]

Miller and Cooper must be protecting one REAL big Democrat.
Whoever it is, I hope he bakes Judith a cake with a file in it.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Completely disagree. We already have whistleblower laws to protect legitimate whistleblowers. But we also have liberal career civil servants committing near treason in their attempts to undermine this administration for political reasons. The 'anonymous source' technique appears to have been greatly abused and manipulated (and in some cases falsified) by agenda-driven reporters.

[colette]

Something must be so scarey that Judith Miller is willing to risk going to the D.C. jail. Is she afraid of Arkancide?