Oh what the heck, I don't want to go to jail, here's my source!

[poseidon]

This is, of course, an offshoot of the "Plame Game" thread. I was going to put this in CE, but figured it would wind up being a debate anyhow, so, well, here goes:

With mounting frustration and a hint of anger, a federal judge said at a hearing Wednesday that he would send two reporters to jail in one week if they did not agree to testify before a grand jury about their confidential sources in the meantime.

It looks as if TIME is giving up the fight:

Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in a probe of the leak of a CIA officer's name. The New York Times, which is also involved in the dispute, said it was "deeply disappointed" at the move, which came days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected two journalists' appeal.

I was taught in my journalism classes about how brave reporters were and how it was important to protect sources no matter what, even if it meant spending time in jail.

It should also be interesting to see who the leak is and what agenda, if any, he or she had.

Anyone have any predictions?

[realtraveller]

It's not as though these reporter's notes are going to be front page news tomorrow. They'll be introduced as evidence before a grand jury..in secret. Unless someone is indicted as having committed a crime no names may ever come out.

Novak must have already complied with the grand jury quite some time ago. He was never in contempt of court. And we still don't know who leaked. The story is a big anyway.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Time Inc and the reporters were being sued separately, no? That's what I recall, anyway.

[erik_kosberg]

I was taught in my journalism classes about how brave reporters were and how it was important to protect sources no matter what, even if it meant spending time in jail.

The reporter isn’t complying, the reporter’s employer is. Admittedly a fine point, and I would have preferred that Time had more of a spine.

And I still don’t understand why Novak (who was after all the one who wrote the story that outed Plame) has so far gotten off easier than two reporters who didn’t out her.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Judith Miller from the NYTimes is still on the hot seat, and since no story was published in The Times, The Times isn't being sued - and can't bail out Ms. Miller if they wanted to.

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

And I still don’t understand why Novak (who was after all the one who wrote the story that outed Plame) has so far gotten off easier than two reporters who didn’t out her.

The reporters weren't in trouble for publishing the information but for withholding the name of a potential lawbreaker from the grand jury. One can only speculate that Novak gave the prosecutors the information, so he is not in contempt of court.

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

I would have preferred that Time had more of a spine.

They went to the Supreme Court and in effect lost. The same principle applies here as in the Judge Roy Moore-10 Commandments case. He thought he had a First Amendment right. The courts disagreed and ordered him to comply with their orders. Now Time, Cooper and Miller should also respect the rule of law and comply. They made their First Amendment arguments and lost.

[brian_igo]

Mark Bowden did a terrific piece last spring on the history and application of shield laws, and the J-school philosophy of never revealing a confidential source, for the Columbia Journalism Review. Highly recommended and very relevent to the Plame case. Here.

I'm of mixed emotions on the situation. As Bowden notes in his story, there are times when standing on the principle does not serve either journalism or the public. I think this is a textbook example of one of those times. I also think the claims by some in the profession that this is an egregious abuse of power (see Bill Saffire's piece in yesterday's Times, to name just one) is a ridiculous exaggeration. This is not going to have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and if the criminal investigation of the Plame leak deters future political operatives from using the First Amendment to smear someone anonymously, all the better.

(On a technically unrelated note there is also the not-small matter of Judy Miller being promoted as a martyr for honest journalism. Her "work" on Iraq's WMD in 2002 was as unethical as anything Jayson Blair ever filed under his byline.)

But what caught my ear today was the explaination of Time Inc's chief editor for turning over the company's emails related to the Cooper story. (Emphasis mine.)

Despite these concerns, Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed records to the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by the rule of law and that none of us is above it.

Standing on principle even when it goes against what you want. Wow.




Brian

[brian_igo]

And Jeff-Matt Cooper did not turn over his notes, as the title of your thread suggests. Time Inc. turned over emails sent on their computers related to Cooper's story, which are the intellectual property of the company.




Brian

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Rumor mill says the leaker is Rove.

Editor & Publisher said

Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove....

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000972839

[erik_kosberg]

Please, please, PLEASE.

[drmomentum[$]]

Rove goes down in flames?

Why, it would be like Christmas for liberals. Because we all know they don't celebrate actual Christmas. Not really.

-JP

[frazzledspice]

Yes, I read that it's Rove, too.

How awful to be a journalist and have to go to jail to protect a sleazy character like that....

Oh, well, if it should prove to be Rove, the Administration will be on the defensive....and maybe even on the run....and that would be a good thing.

[erik_kosberg]

FWIW, Josh Marshall has a theory:

What's implicit in Isikoff's report, however, and in the Tribune too, is that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald is after Rove for some felony arising out of the case (perjury after the fact? conspiracy?) but not the immediate and original act of leaking the name.

[drmomentum[$]]

The best thing about it is that Rove works for the White House. Which means that, we hand him a nice paycheck to do this kind of stuff for us.

Well, this and spout misguided hatred toward people who differ in political ideology. ANd who is he answerable to? To the Republican party? No. To some constituency which elected him? No. Just Dubya.

But it's probably not Rove. Too much integrity there.

-JP

(Har)

[phoenixx]

In related news, this is now affecting the way we receive our news (or DON'T receive it):

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050709/D8B7T3NO0.html

[pippadaisy[$]]

You know, if Rove goes to jail, I'll be a heck of a lot less upset about the lack of confidentiality of sources.

[poseidon]

You guys are a riot. You've already convicted Rove for something where he's not yet even named. Sounds too much like Dean wanting DeLay to "serve his prison sentence" when he's not even been charged with any crime.

Remember, it is the Republicans who are supposed to be hateful. Democrats are supposed to be loving, kind, decent people who can solve the world's problems with warm fuzzies and hugs. Why don't I see any of that?

[erik_kosberg]

Democrats are supposed to be loving, kind, decent people who can solve the world's problems with warm fuzzies and hugs. Why don't I see any of that?

Maybe because that definition of Democrats exists only in your imagination?

[mrisch[$]]

poseidon said

You guys are a riot. You've already convicted Rove for something where he's not yet even named.

???All I see is "if" and "please, please, please" - - I don't see anyone accepting it as true...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

poseidon said

Remember, it is the Republicans who are supposed to be hateful. Democrats are supposed to be loving, kind, decent people who can solve the world's problems with warm fuzzies and hugs.

That's a great idea. Let's give Rove a group hug. He's so soft and squishy! 'Twill be fun.

And then we'll send him to therapy, cause that's just the kind of nice people that we are.

And the poor boy's going to need all the kindness, compassion, and lovin' we can throw his way. How sad for him if he has to pack up his pencils and staplers, his tattered copy of "The Prince," and his "Manufactured Sexual Innuendo" files in a cardboard box and take them home and put them in his garage! Poor, poor Mr. Rove. {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Karl}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

P.S. Mean old Michael Isikoff at Newsweek has written another article. Sheesh. Didn't his mother teach him that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all?

Newsweek said

... Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published....

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing—and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.