Not that I ever would, but now I sure as hell will never work for Time:
Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer’s name.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time’s White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters’ appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.
In a statement, Time said it believes “the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.” ‘
But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.
Watch the sources for Time dry up, pronto, because when the going gets rough- they get going.
If you really believe there should be a privilege, a confidentiality, then the execs at Time should be doing everything they can to fight this, even if that includes a little lawlessness. If Cooper were to go to jail, they should be paying him a weekly salary for every day he is in, and checking on his family every day. Support your people, your reputation, and your sources.
Sojourner
Well said.
Tim F
Yep, this should have been Cooper’s decision. Bafflingly stupid move by a media conglomerate.
Sure I’ll be pleased to see the perfidious goons who exposed Valerie Plame serve their time, but this isn’t the way to do it.
Tim F
My ten bucks says that somebody will claim that nobody committed a crime and that Fitzgerald is a political hack, etc etc. Before that gets started I should point out that in remanding the case to a prosecutor the CIA determined that a crime certainly had occurred, and they know more than you do.
Doug
I’m not sure. It’s a court order, and all of the appeals of the order have dried up. Respect for the rule of law requires obedience at that point.
Just like emotionally, I wished the citizens of Florida had shown a little lawlessness and continued counting votes when the S.Ct. ordered them to stop; but respect for the rule of law required them to stop.
KC
We’ll just have to see how this whole thing plays out. Honestly, part of me thinks it’s all just a media intimidation shell game put on by the WH. But, I try to keep that part of me locked in a closet.
demimondian
Respect for the law doesn’t necessarily entail obedience. That’s what civil disobedience is all about — breaking the law, and then respectfully taking the punishment which goes with it.
p.lukasiak
sorry, but in this instance Cooper isn’t protecting a source, he’s protecting a criminal who attempted to enlist Cooper as an accomplice.
I do feel sorry for Cooper, because it appears that he is acting (mistakenly) on principle. Miller, on the other hand, is merely protecting the same people whose lies she promoted in the run-up to the US-Iraq War II. She’s just being a media-whore, and hopefully will be sent to one of those places that give women’s prisons a bad name.
SeesThroughIt
The thing about this that really pisses me off is that that fuckface Robert Novak–ya know, the guy who actually outed Valerie Plame–is suffering no consequences.
Kimmitt
Heh, not yet.
BinkyBoy
Unfortunately, from what I can understand of the shield law, Novak is in the free and clear.
Now he can keep sucking dry the American people like the undead creature of the night he really is, and we can worry more about the next shark attack/missing white girl.
Thank you MSM, I love you for all the crimes and entertainment you bring me.
zach
They need to turn over the notes because the person who outed the CIA against BROKE THE LAW. Sources can remain confidential as long as they aren’t hiding someone who BROKE THE LAW by divulging classified information. How will the nation be better served by NOT releasing Time’s information? The leaked information did nothing but out a CIA officer, which put god knowsd how many people in danger and did absolutely nothing for the public. How did the public gain from this knowledge? The only reason i can see for not releasing the sources information is if the information was NOT classified and, if it was, it had to have been leaked for the good of our nation (i.e. some info about illegal activity our government is participating in… or how about a classified memo regarding Cheney’s energy meetings??).
carot
If the Supreme Court says the jounrlaists have no right to withhold their sources then that is the law and people should respect it. Also if what these sources did was break the law then again that is the law and they should suffer the consequences.
Dirty tricks like this happen with both Liberals and Conservatives though. There were plenty of nit picking laws that Clinton’s staff ran foul of as well. I think they should either change the law or Bush should pardon the sources if they are convicted. Liberals usually only care because they see a chance to hurt Bush anyway.
scs
Didn’t Novak and publisher break the law by printing Valerie what’s-her-name’s name? Just because someone told him something in confidence, doesn’t give him the right to blab. Maybe he should be charged for that.
Also, lets not exaggerate the importance of sources here. They are not holy. The media act like they are doing a religious duty. Why on earth would Judith Miller and folks want to spend one day in jail for some snitch who blabbed illegal info. Actually, I think they are just being selfish because I think they are ultimately concerned about their sources because of their own career, not the larger issues.
carot
“Actually, I think they are just being selfish because I think they are ultimately concerned about their sources because of their own career, not the larger issues.”
No, I think they are concerned that if they reveal their sources on this one then in the future other legitimate sources will think twice about talking to them. Most leaks are illegal to some degree, or violating confidentiality agreements, so criminalising leaking is a slippery slope.
scs
Just because reporters tell on one source acting illegally doesn’t mean all their future sources will dry up. It’s that slippery slope argument that John Cole always rails against. Legitimate sources will still be there and people like to blab anyway, it’s human nature. Reporters should weigh the pro’s of protecting sources with the con’s of protecting a criminal.