Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y.
Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe
By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post
Logic defies the MSM's elevation of Judy Miller to a platform of supreme morality. At the center of all the bru-ha-ha is the press's obligation to protect a source's request for confidentiality.
But exactly what is a reporter or publication's motivation for refusing to divulge the source and testify if the source has removed their demands to remain anonymous?
Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said journalists, like doctors and lawyers, are under no obligation to remain silent about a source who has waived confidentiality. "It's the source's privilege, not the reporter's," he said. "If the source doesn't want confidentiality, the reporter has no business insisting on it. . . . If it's a matter of conscience instead of a matter of law, you can do whatever you want. As a legal matter, it's absurd."
If a publication's quest is genuinely to reveal truth and expose corruption, and a source has granted permission to be openly identified in that goal, then there is no reason not to cooperate in subsequent investigations.
The distorted reasoning of the NY Times revolves around their beef that they feel the waiver of confidentiality was "coerced".
The White House directed high-level officials to sign general waivers releasing journalists from any pledge of confidentiality on the Plame matter, but Cooper said last week that such waivers "are not worth the paper they're written on" because they are inherently coercive. Cooper agreed to testify after announcing that his source had personally released him from his promise of anonymity. Miller has steadfastly refused to testify.
Coercive? Where is the logic here? If the targets of the investigation - in this case, as usual, the White house and staff - have instructed their personnel to cooperate with the investigation, I would think the reporters would be leaping for joy to have a substantiated source. But in the case of Judy Miller, evidently not.
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said Miller is doing a "brave and honorable" thing. "The simple fact is that Judy made a promise to a source that she would protect his anonymity. That source has not granted her any kind of a waiver from that promise, at least one that she finds persuasive or believes was freely given, and she feels bound by that pledge. And more than that, she feels that, if she breaks that pledge, she will compromise her ability to do her job in the future."
(snip)
"Judy and Matt both felt very strongly that the waivers referred to in court by Judge Hogan -- preprinted forms from the Department of Justice that people were instructed to sign by their superiors -- do not constitute the sort of waivers a journalist ought to accept as truly freeing the journalist from the obligation of confidentiality," Abrams said. "Both of them believed this was simply a form of coercion."
Apparently Ms. Miller is pious enough to decide for her source if the waiver is genuine. So despite the legal release, she holds firm to her position. And for this, Ms. Miller is boldy hailed the abused heroine for justice.
As is usual, the NYT's and journalists' think this is all abouth *them*. Perhaps they should be reminded that the investigation's goal is to find and reprimand those who may have comprised a federal agent's identity and jeopardized others... along with any subsequent coverups. Needless to say, the case would be more legitimate if the source(s) themselves were legally forced to cooperate.
Supoenaes and testimony under oath are a daily fact of life in this nation. And in many instances, those supoened may be highly reticent to cooperate. Therefore, supoenaes, themselves, are "coercive" by nature. But they are also a real and vital step in our judicial system.
Instead of labeling these waivers of confidentiality as "coercion", the NYT's should be applauding the WH administration for demanding their staff cooperate with the investigation. Point of fact, the WH was supporting the reporters and their quest for truth by firmly insisting on testimony of those with direct knowledge, instead of relying on 2nd hand hearsay by the press.
Preprinted waivers are a red herring. Subjects of photographs and thespians are among those that sign preprinted waivers daily. Waiving rights should *never* be a self-composed document, and doing so would be foolhardy.
And what about the charge of "coerced"? Absolutly nonsensical. Were the WH seeking to protect the party who named the agent, or those who aimed to discredit Wilson for his accusations, any intimidating, coercive tactics would be better spent influencing the staff to remain silent.
From all appearances, the NYT holds little interest in getting to the truth of the incident. Instead, they are concerning themselves with self-import, and the fight to continue to enjoy special "immunity" when asked to back up their public accusations with viable sources.
An example of the NYT's inflated ego and lack of regard for the investigation and it's results is evident in today's editorial, A Few Thoughts on Karl Rove.
Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless.
Mr. Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public.
According to the NYT's, be damned with the investigation. All Rove has to do is call a press conference and sing the lyrics they want to hear.
Not surprising for career press types who believe they are, and should remain, above the law. And what is more disconcerting is that, in the NYT's eyes, talking to the press should replace an official investigation.
These statements are flagrantly pompous, and show the publication's utter contempt for "innocent until found guilty" and the legal process.
No comments:
Post a Comment