Homestead mailing list

["Toni Hawryluk" <tonihawr AT msn.com>]

http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap10-24-102318.asp?t=apnew&vts=102420041041

 

Pressure on reporters begins to spook sources

By SETH SUTEL
ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK, Oct. 24 - In the coming weeks, two reporters from major news 
organizations could be sent to jail for refusing to disclose confidential 
sources, and others could face fines. Another reporter is already being 
assessed a fine of $1,000 per day for refusing to say how he obtained a 
videotape of a former Providence, R.I. city hall official taking a bribe from 
an undercover FBI informant.

 

     While it's still unclear whether the reporters from Time magazine and 
The New York Times will actually have to go behind bars to protect the 
identity of their sources, there are early signs that a widening pattern of 
legal pressure on reporters to break promises of confidentiality is having a 
chilling effect on people who want to share important information with the 
public but only on the condition that their names not be disclosed. 
       Clark Hoyt, the Washington editor of Knight Ridder, the second-largest 
newspaper company in the country, said that in the past few weeks he has seen 
two cases of people at first wishing to provide information for stories on a 
confidential basis, then backing out later for fear that they would be 
investigated or that their identity might be discovered from a subpoena of 
the reporter's phone records. 
       ''I think there is no question that there is greater anxiety among 
sources about talking to journalists,'' Hoyt said. 
       The ability of reporters to get sensitive information confidentially 
received another challenge on Thursday when a federal judge approved an 
unusual request by bioterror expert Steven Hill to question journalists who 
published stories relating to the 2001 anthrax attacks. 
       As part of the unusual arrangement, the Justice Department will 
distribute waiver forms to members of its staff next month that would allow 
employees to release journalists from pledges of confidentiality. Hatfill's 
attorneys would then question reporters who wrote about the attacks about 
information that they may have received under a promise of confidentiality. 
       Hatfill is suing Attorney General John Ashcroft and other government 
officials who named him as a ''person of interest'' in the 2001 anthrax 
attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others. Hatfill says his 
reputation has been ruined, and he is seeking damages. 
       Similar waivers of confidentiality pledges have already been used by 
prosecutors in a separate investigation into the disclosure of the identity 
of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative. Investigators suspect that her 
name may have been revealed as an act of retribution by the government 
against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, after he wrote a 
newspaper opinion column criticizing President Bush's claim that <>Iraq had 
sought uranium in Niger. 
       Judith Miller from the Times and Matt Cooper from Time magazine were 
both found in contempt of court this month for declining to disclose 
confidential sources in that case, and appeals are pending. Some reporters in 
the case gave testimony after government officials released them from pledges 
of confidentiality. 
       There is already at least one instance in which a potential sources of 
information was spooked by the use of such waivers. Eve Burton, the general 
counsel for Hearst Corp., which owns 12 newspapers across the country, said a 
Hearst reporter had been told by a source recently that that person would 
never release the reporter from a pledge of confidentiality. ''My response 
back as a lawyer is that you ought to be sure that this is a story you're 
willing to go to jail for,'' Burton said. 
       The Plame investigation is just one of several recent examples of 
pressure on reporters to divulge confidential sources of information. This 
summer five reporters, including one from The Associated Press, were held in 
contempt of court in a civil case that the former nuclear physicist Wen Ho 
Lee is bringing against the government. Fines were levied but the payments 
were suspended pending appeals. 
       In Rhode Island, reporter Jim Taricani for WJAR-TV was found in 
contempt of court for refusing to say how he obtained a videotape showing a 
Providence official taking a bribe. Former Providence Mayor Vincent ''Buddy'' 
Cianci Jr. is currently serving a five-year prison term after being convicted 
in 2002 of masterminding a scheme that took bribes in exchange for tax 
breaks, favors and jobs with the city. 
       Many of the recent legal actions against reporters are occurring on 
the federal level, where there is no clear law protecting journalists from 
revealing the identities of their confidential sources. Such ''shield'' laws 
exist at 31 states, however. 
       On Oct. 10, three days after Miller was found in contempt of court in 
the Plame case, the Times published an op-ed article by its publisher Arthur 
Sulzberger Jr. and Russell T. Lewis, CEO of The New York Times Co., calling 
for a federal ''shield'' law to protect reporters from attempts to compel 
them to reveal the identity of their sources. 
       ''The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of 
information - particularly information about the government - are cut off,'' 
Sulzberger and Lewis wrote. ''Yes, the press is far from perfect. We are 
human and make mistakes. But, the authors of our Constitution and its First 
Amendment understood all of that and for good reason prescribed that 
journalists should function as a 'fourth estate.' '' 
       --- 
       On the Net: 
       Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: 
http://www.rcfp.org<http://www.rcfp.org/> 



© 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be 
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. a