Not-so-free Press

by teejay 16 Replies latest social current

  • teejay
    teejay

    Our Not-So-Free Press
    NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

    In the last few months, three different US federal judges, each appointed by President Reagan, have found a total of eight journalists in contempt of court for refusing to reveal confidential sources, and the first of them may go to prison before the year is out. Some of the rest may be in prison by spring.

    The first reporter likely to go to jail is Jim Taricani, a television reporter for the NBC station in Providence, Rhode Island. Mr. Taricani obtained and broadcast, completely legally, a videotape of a city official as he accepted an envelope full of cash.

    US District Judge Ernest Torres found Mr. Taricani in contempt for refusing to identify the person he got the videotape from, and the judge fined him $1,000 a day. That hasn?t broken Mr. Taricani, so Judge Torres has set a hearing for November 18 to decide whether to squeeze him further by throwing him in jail.

    Patrick Fitzgerald, the overzealous special prosecutor who hasn?t made any progress in punishing the White House officials believed to have leaked the identity of the CIA officer Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, seems determined to imprison two reporters who committed no crime ? Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of TIME ? because they won?t blab about confidential sources. Federal District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to send them to prison; a hearing is set for December 8. Mr. Novak is in no apparent jeopardy for reasons that remain unclear.

    Then there?s a third case, a civil suit between the nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee and the government. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson held five reporters who are not even parties to the suit in contempt for refusing to reveal confidential sources.

    In yet another case, the Justice Department is backing a prosecutor?s effort to get a record of telephone calls made by two New York Times reporters?uncovering all their confidential sources in the fall of 2001. Put all this together, and we?re seeing a broad assault on freedom of the press that would appall us if it were happening in Kazakhstan.

    Responsibility lies primarily with the judges rather than with the Bush administration. But it?s probably not a coincidence that we?re seeing an offensive against press freedoms during an administration that has a Brezhnevian fondness for secrecy.

    Journalists are in this mess partly because we?re widely seen as arrogant and biased. But when reporters face jail for doing their jobs, the ultimate victim is the free flow of information, the circulatory system of any democracy.

    In May, Iran?s secret police detained me in Tehran and demanded that I identify a revolutionary guard I had quoted as saying ?to hell with the mullahs.? My interrogators threatened to imprison me unless I revealed my source. But after a standoff, the Iranian goons let me go. Imprisoning Western journalists for protecting their sources was too medieval, even for them. Let?s hope the US judicial system shows the same restraint as those Iranian thugs.




    RELATED.
  • Golf
    Golf

    Do I smell communism here? The again, wasn't FDR's cabinet full of communist? Guest77

  • confusedjw
    confusedjw

    Is there a Constitutional protection for not revealing information relevant to an investigation? Sure you can write what you want, but you can?t impede and investigation. If I turn over the murder weapon to the police, but won't tell them who gave it to me aren't I impeding an investigation if a Judge says I have to? Why is it different with reporters?

    Are we to suppose that a reporter-to-informant relationship is the same as a lawyer-to-client?

  • teejay
    teejay

    As a laymen, I think yours is a valid question.

    I'm no Constitutional expert, of course, but as far as I know, there is no Constitutional protection for a reporter's not revealing the source of their information ? just a long-standing practice of allowing it. However, writing what one wants isn't close to being the issue, if you (even superficially) examine the cases cited.

    Why would Novak, who publicly revealed the name of a CIA operative?a FELONY?not be brought up on charges (or in any other way held accountable) when others who are "guilty" of the same "crime" in less egregious cases are on their way to prison?

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Confused

    Govts would like to keep their own corruption secret. Most reporters serve the govts and corps obediently. Some don't. These reporters stand between the powers and the whistleblower. The powers would like to punish the whistleblower. Do you still trust govt and corporate power?

    S

  • confusedjw
    confusedjw
    Govts would like to keep their own corruption secret. Most reporters serve the govts and corps obediently. Some don't. These reporters stand between the powers and the whistleblower. The powers would like to punish the whistleblower. Do you still trust govt and corporate power?

    Hell no I don't trust gov't or coporate power and I think freedom of press is a great thing. I encourage reporters to dig investigate and reveal what they learn. Freedom of press is the secret sauce of free society - I think it's a protection for us.

    But it does come with consequences, in that many reporters would also like to sell reports and would encourage "sources" to provide information to them that should also be part of the court process. What is a judge supposted to do? If it's his job to provide justice the fact that the person who has the information he needs is a "reporter" doesn't change anything.

    What if a reporter had a video of a crime against you or your family - and finding who gave it to him would catch the person. Would you want him to give up his "source" then?

    Do you always trust the media?

    Why would Novak, who publicly revealed the name of a CIA operative?a FELONY?not be brought up on charges (or in any other way held accountable) when others who are "guilty" of the same "crime" in less egregious cases are on their way to prison?
    No reason not to bust his butt.
  • teejay
    teejay

    Interesting article on "Reporter's Privilege".... if you're interested.

  • confusedjw
    confusedjw
    Do I smell communism here? The again, wasn't FDR's cabinet full of communist? Guest77

    I will point out that communism is what happens when a gov't goes too far to the left - not right - which is what is being implied here. Vikings are what you get when you go too far to the right.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Only corrupt government officials are scared to death of whistle-blowers.

    The Bush administration is the most closed and secretive administration in a very long time. This, to me, is a sign of corruption and too much control.

    Any government official who refuses to be monitored should be fired on the spot.

  • Satanus
    Satanus
    What if a reporter had a video of a crime against you or your family - and finding who gave it to him would catch the person. Would you want him to give up his "source" then?

    That's a little different. My power compared to govt is next to nothing. Secondly, your illustration has it turned around. The way i see it, people who snitch on govts need protection. Anonimity can be a part of that.

    S

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit