Showdown for Press Freedom

NY Times ^ | Dec 5, 2004

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The First Amendment suffered a blow in October when a federal trial judge sentenced two reporters to prison for up to 18 months each for refusing to comply with subpoenas to reveal their confidential sources before a federal grand jury. Their sentences were stayed pending a consolidated appeal, which is scheduled to be heard this Wednesday by a three-judge appellate panel in Washington.

This challenge to press freedoms comes courtesy of Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney and special prosecutor charged with investigating accusations that the Bush administration illegally leaked the name of a covert Central Intelligence Agency operative, Valerie Plame, to the columnist Robert Novak in order to punish her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, for criticizing Iraq policy. Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry has evolved into a major assault on the confidential relationship between journalists and their sources, which was of critical importance in exposing the very abuse of governmental power that prompted Mr. Fitzgerald's involvement in the first place.

We have special reason to be concerned. One of the journalists is a Times reporter, Judith Miller. The other is Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. But the possibility that journalists may be incarcerated merely for acting on principle to preserve press freedom ought to trouble everyone - including members of Congress, who should use this occasion to approve legislation explicitly extending safeguards against forced disclosure of sources to all federal proceedings.

Even in the absence of a new law, ample grounds for quashing the subpoenas can be found in the First Amendment, various legal precedents, Justice Department guidelines and common law recognition of at least a qualified privilege for reporters based on the nearly universal consensus among states supporting protection of a reporter's confidential sources. Local statutes in New York and Washington, where the two reporters work, make the privilege absolute.

On a procedural level, the prosecutor's success in the lower court was tainted by egregious unfairness, stemming from the undue secrecy of the prosecutor's filings. The case itself is full of unexplained oddities, starting with Mr. Fitzgerald's decision to focus on Ms. Miller's contacts even though she never wrote a single article about the Plame controversy. And then there is the mystery of Mr. Novak, who first published Ms. Plame's name, yet seems in no jeopardy even as his colleagues face jail time.

The larger issue, though, is the potential cost to government accountability, robust journalism and an informed citizenry. In his zeal to compel reporters to disclose their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald lost sight of that bigger picture. A wise appellate panel would not make the same error.

[MNJohnnie]

Translation from liberal speak.

"How DARE they hold us accountable. Don't they know we are above the law because..... well because WE say we are."

Bye Bye Dinosaur media, you ARE the weakest link.

[yevgenie]

Why is this trash still an issue???

1. Plame was not a covert operative.
2. Her husband's speaking engagements and website pictured the family with a caption reading that she was employed by the CIA
3. Mr. Novak only said he got info from an "adminstration" official--never specified from whom or what agency/administration.

[El Gato]

The Constitution protects Freedom of the Press, that is freedom to publish what you wish. It does not create a privileged class that is exempt from laws that apply to the rest of us.

They must respond to a subpoena, just like anyone else.

[cyncooper]

This challenge to press freedoms comes courtesy of Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney and special prosecutor

Fitzgerald wants them to testify. Judge Hogan is the one who found cause and ordered them to do so and cited them with contempt when they declined.

Furthermore, appellate courts upheld Judge Hogan's finding.

Sorry NY Times, your disingenousness is blatant. It is not some rogue prosecutor as you wish to convey here in your deceitful little piece.

Isn't it funny that for months the dems were trilling about how fair and impartial Fitzgerald was. That's when they idiotically thought he'd find wrong-doing in the Bush WH.

[cyncooper]

which was of critical importance in exposing the very abuse of governmental power that prompted Mr. Fitzgerald's involvement in the first place.

So the Wilson/dem operative talking points SAY. There is zero evidence of government power having been misused by the Bush WH. There's plenty to indicate the rogues at CIA and other anti-Bush elements conspired to try and bring down President Bush with their concocted yellowcake smears.

[cyncooper]

But the possibility that journalists may be incarcerated merely for acting on principle to preserve press freedom ought to trouble everyone

What troubles me is "journalists" knowingly reporting lies about an administration in an effort to bring it down.

[Luke21]

Doctors face malpractice suits. So should the liberal press.

[The Old Hoosier]

Unless you want the government licensing journalists, you cannot give reporters a special exemption from testifying. Period.

The Times luminaries clearly haven't thought this one out too well.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Not really related to this article, but on-topic.

I've sort of been waiting for the San Francisco Chronicle to get in some hot water over the whole steroids and baseball issue. They basically printed the federal grand jury testimony of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds, which they obtained illegally. I'd love to see those reporters forced to reveal who gave them those grand jury transcripts, and to see what happens if they refuse. Seems to me that the judicial system is in jeopardy if the confidentiality of grand jury testimony disappears.