We Jail Journalists, Don't We?
If you don't believe in freedom of the press — if you prefer the press systems of places like Cuba or Burma, then please skip this posting.
Otherwise, get concerned -- real concerned-- about the jailing of American reporters. Take the case of Rhode Island TV reporter Jim Taricani. 
A veteran investigative journo with three decades of experience and the survivor of a heart transplant, Taricani was out there doing what he's paid to do: afflict the comfortable.
Back in 2001, he aired an undercover surveillance videotape that showed an aide to the former mobbed-up mayor of Providence taking a cash bribe from an FBI informant. Be advised he broke no law by airing the tape.
The guy should get a medal, shouldn't he?
Instead, after a 45 minute trial today he got convicted in Federal Court of criminal contempt. When he's sentenced next month he faces a possible six months in jail. Quite a reward for his dilligence.
Though Taricani violated no laws whatsoever in broadcasting the tape, a special prosecutor was appointed to find out who leaked the video because the court had ordered no one to release any recordings connected to the case. Taricani merely upheld his privilege as a reporter to not reveal his confidential sources — and now his payback is jail time.
This is no isolated case but rather only the latest in a string of incidents in which reporters are being threatened with jail for merely doing their job — protecting the public interest.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has a detailed breakdown of these cases that currently involve nine reporters facing federal subpoenas, convictions and/or jail time.
The Committee also has a public statement that you are invited to sign to stand up for reporters' rights. Do it.
There's a lot of mystification and distortion out there at the present about what the role of a free press is in our society. Some of you wiseacres might think it rather exotic that reporters should possess the privilege of shielding their sources.
But that's a right that protects you, the citizen. When we journalists are compelled to divulge confidential sources then whistleblowers will no longer seek us out, they will no longer expose corruption and malfeasance because we will simply no longer be able to guarantee anonymity.
You don't like that? OK. Then sit right down on your $600 Pentagon toilet seat, hopefully somewhere near the Love Canal, take a deep breath or two, and whip out your copy of the Peking Review for some unfettered reading from some very compromised reporters -- all of whom obediently name (and revere) their sources.
November 18th, 2004 at 7:56 pm
“and whip out your copy of the Peking Review for some unfettered reading from some very compromised reporters — ”
Marc, just to bring you up to date…Chinese have more than Peking Review available for reading…:
http://www.nanfangdaily.com.cn/southnews/
November 18th, 2004 at 8:13 pm
Thanks for this post, Marc. Appalling.
And of course I immediately (and obediently) went and signed the petition. That’s the good news. The bad news is I’d already signed it a month ago, a middle-aged brain-freeze-related fact I failed to catch until I saw myself listed twice. Oh, well.
November 18th, 2004 at 8:25 pm
Oh well.. better than signing it a third time. Great piece btw on Luis and family. Hope this is ur next book.
November 18th, 2004 at 8:42 pm
Marc, please, please explain how, in any of those cases cited, there was some sort of ‘whistleblowing’ going on.
–I’d have thought you would have wanted the people who outed Plame identified.
–Dr. Lee appears to have got a raw deal, he was accused of espionage, but the charges were dropped, and apparently the DOE and DOJ tried to smear him.
–What public interest was being served by Taricani broadcasting that video?
–In the Global Relief case, again what public interest is being served?
–In the Balco case, again, what public interest was served by the publishing of documents the court said were confidential?
Please explain what’s going on in these cases. I’m not seeing it.
The Lynne Stewart case seems obvious. One reporter has successfully argued her point, so it should work for the rest of them.
November 18th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
You dont see a public interest in the Taricani case? The video of a Mayor’s deputy taking a bribe?
I won’t even debate the substance of the other cases with you because they are irrelevant. The public interest resides in the very principle of the reporter’s shield. No matter how trivial or not one case is, the legal principle must stand that a reporter can guarantee anonymity. If that principle is overturned by the courts then when the really important cases come up — the ones you deem worthy– the protection will not be there. By the way, unless you have worked as a reporter is it likely you have no concept of how just how much of the news you take for granted can be gathered thanks to this principle. The moment it becomes a fact that the confidentiality of sources will not be guaranteed, all bets are off.
I find it quite amusing btw hat you are willing to countenance all sorts of shortcuts and extraordinary powers and privileges for police officials and the federal government but you are reluctant to grant the basic shield for reporters upon whom the citizenry relies for information.
Of course in authoritarian systems, reporters have no such privilege. And the public can rely on the word of government officials. I’ll pass on that thank you very much.
November 18th, 2004 at 9:24 pm
Eric, as Marc said, the privilege of the reporter’s shield is essential to protect for all of us. Would I personally like the Valerie Plame outing weasel outed? Hell, yes! But at the cost of a reporter being forced to reveal a confidential source? Never. Not in this or any other lifetime.
(Even though, okay, yes, my mean girl inner adolescent wouldn’t re-e-e-ally mind having Judith Miller do a teensy weensy bit of jail time.)
Marc, thanks, m’dear, and yes. Next up.
November 18th, 2004 at 10:52 pm
This reporter’s shield is a myth except in states that have such a law. The Supreme Court has held that reporters have no greater right than anyone else when it comes to withholding information from courts. That’s been true for a long time.
Reporters cannot be prosecuted for what they write. They can only be prosecuted for refusing to answer questions that other citizens are required to answer.
I know that reporters think that they are special and walk on a higher plane, but that is not Constitutionally the case.
That being said, the ability to shield sources is sometimes important to the public. But an absolute ability to shield sources can result in important failures of justice. Furthermore, given the often nefarious motives of leakers, I don’t think absolute protection of them is warranted.
Who leaked to Novak about Valerie Plame? Why don’t we just lock up Novak until he spills the beans? If I had that information, that’s what would happen to me.
If you want reporters to be shielded, go for legislation. Let the citizens who will supposedly benefit have a say in this. Create a situation where a law exists that creates a presumption, and courts can determine individual cases.
November 19th, 2004 at 5:37 am
So if I am to understand you here, as you say:
“The public interest resides in the very principle of the reporter’s shield. No matter how trivial or not one case is, the legal principle must stand that a reporter can guarantee anonymity.”
This implies to me that reporters get to ignore court orders and stuff at will. They get to operate outside the law. They do not have to obey the courts like other citizens are required.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Are you also implying that this “reporter’s shield” cannot be abused by reporters?
What if Plame had been overseas, and her cover blown and was assassinated for being a CIA agent. Now what?
November 19th, 2004 at 11:33 am
I wonder if this guy could survive under the new rules of the Mayor Allawi?
http://www.harpers.org/BeyondFallujah.html
November 19th, 2004 at 8:40 pm
Well, check this out; Seems Senator Dodd from CT is in agreement with John Moore:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_go_co/reporters_sources_1&printer=1
November 19th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
the court had ordered no one to release any recordings connected to the case.
Once the court orders this, folks need to obey it. This is known as “rule of law”, and is an even higher, and more important, principle than confedentiality of a reporter’s sources. Which IS a high and important principle, too.
The focus of the outrage should be on the court order — why did the court censor this? What is the court’s reasoning? If, as seems likely, such censorship reasoning is faulty, what is the way to repair it?
It is absolutely certain that gov’t officials are taking bribes, so there needs to be a system of checks on this illegal misbehavior. On ALL gov’t misbehavior. I’m pretty sure current whistleblower protection is less adequate than is optimal.
Just like in the UNSCAM oil-for-palace crap, what serves society best is almost always MORE public information about the truth. I want only very limited confidentiality of “truth”, like videotapes, being allowed to stand. I strongly suspect the judges order is wrong.
Once the judge gives the order, that’s the way it goes. Marc, perhaps if you think about your outrage, vs. pro-life outrage of judges accepting legal abortion, it provides interesting views on the feelings AGAINST any system of injustice.
I think Harry Potter books are wonderful in creating realistic, unjust situtations. Injustice creates intense emotions.
November 19th, 2004 at 11:55 pm
Tom.. ur half right. Rule of Law is indeed a principle that must be defended. So does the reporter’s shield. Sometimes they will clash with each other. Society is going to have to decide how to mediate that conflict. Putting reporters in jail and forcing them to reveal confidential sources erodes all the power of the citizenry.
For the record, I am NOT outraged. As I said in the post, I am concerned, very concerned.
I also continue to be amused, Tom and John, by the hypocrisy of certain conservatives who I will not name (but of the shoe fits). Funny isnt it how some of you are so quick to side with the “rights” of big government over that of the citizens’ right to know? Be careful, for the rights you disdain are also yours.
To you John, it seems you are quick to accuse lowly reporters of wanting special rights– but you are blithe to grant special powers to much more powerful and intrusive cops and prosecutors. That’s the wrong side of the slope to be on.
On these isues, my friends, I am quite comfortable siding not only with the ACLU but also with authentic Conservatives like Bob Barr and Dick Armey who take the principles of freedom dead seriosuly and are loathe to be stampeded — even during a war — to expand the powers of the state.
Where’s John Galt when you need him?
November 20th, 2004 at 8:01 am
“Once the judge gives the order, that’s the way it goes. Marc, perhaps if you think about your outrage, vs. pro-life outrage of judges accepting legal abortion, it provides interesting views on the feelings AGAINST any system of injustice.”
That’s bizarre, you’re for putting women in jail for having abortions? A whole lot of taxation of the rich will be necessary before you could pay for all the jails full of good christian women and their doctors, nurses,…
November 21st, 2004 at 3:07 am
Marc, Didn’t I read in your post a Judge had ruled the video tape not be released to the public during an on-going trial? The fact it was(apparently), isn’t this breaking the law?
In an attempt to find the perpetrator, the Judge has a right to find out who released it to the public by demanded to know who had access to it, doesn’t he?
November 24th, 2004 at 11:36 am
International Jailed Journalists Support Day
Today Reporters Without Borders is marking the fifteenth International Jailed Journalists Support Day:Reporters Without Borders dedicates its 15th annual Jailed Journalists Support Day to the two kidnapped French journalists in Iraq. It is campaigning…