Should Journalists Protect Criminal Confidential Sources?

[realtraveller]

I scratch my head over the illogic and hypocrisy of the NY Times. That paper editorializes on the horrible crime of outing a CIA agent but considers its reporter Judith Miller to be some sort of a martyr for not saying who may have committed the very crime they are decrying. If the crime is terrible, then isn't not coming forward and disclosing the name of the criminal at least a very bad thing? Where is the ethical justification for not disclosing the name of someone who may have broken the law? (The same goes for Time Magazine. They would have done the same thing but for the personal release).

Does anyone else think it's sort of funny that the White House press corps is shouting at Scott McClellan "You're not telling us everything!!!" But are they clamoring for Judith Miller to tell what she knows?. In fact, just the opposite. She is poor, poor Judith sleeping on the floor.

Makes no sense to me. Isn't what Miller is doing obstruction of justice? Since when does a personal promise trump a federal statute?

Journalists say that they need to have confidential sources in order to keep government open and honest. But where is that need when the need is to keep government secrets secret?

In today's Washington Post, there's a lengthy article on a graffiti vandal. He's done thousands of dollars in damage around Washington. Buried in the article is the disclosure that the Washington Post knew who he was, he had come forward to one of their reporters and they promised him confidentiality.

There's more journalistic "ethics". Boy, it's really important that journalists keep the confidentiality of a vandal so that they can get a non-story on graffit vandalism.

[Redlass]

I would argue that where the issue is, is when a reporter promises confidentiality.

When I worked for a newspaper, we weren't allowed to promise confidentiality or use anonymous sources unless we first got the permission of two different editors. It wasn't a thing lightly given simply because of the ethical issues involved in protecting someone who was a lawbreaker.

So I guess my problem goes back further than where we are now. I don't have a problem with Judith Miller going to jail or refusing to reveal her source (provided she is willing to go to jail). I do have a problem with the fact that she promised confidentiality in the first place.

Once the promise is made, I think it needs to be kept. Yes, there are times when they only way to get a story is to promise confidentiality. Yes, there are times when the stories that rely on these pledges of confidentiality are important for the public to know. However, when they are made frivolously, it erodes the perception of that need.

[drmomentum[$]]

Should Journalists Protect Criminal Confidential Sources?

Only if they have promised to do so and if they want their word to mean something.

-James

[realtraveller]

Promises of confidentiality that don't involve hiding criminality are one thing.

But if the source, either admits to criminality, or if giving the information alone is a criminal act, then promises of confidentiality should not be given.

But more than that, a personal promise of confidentiality should not/does not overrule the right of the people through a federal prosecutor to find out who the lawbreakers are.

Judith Miller is so arrogant that she thinks that her personal promise is more important than the grand jury investigation. She is defying a federal court order. The only reason she isn't being raked over the coals like Judge Roy Moore was for defying a federal court order is that she is a member of the journalist's club. And the media don't go after one of their own.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Huh? Isn't there a long, long tradition of journalists being willing to go to jail to protect their confidential sources?

[Redlass]

I'm also not sure that Jason Blair would agree with the statement that journalists don't go after one of their own.

[realtraveller]

AuntieEmma said

Huh? Isn't there a long, long tradition of journalists being willing to go to jail to protect their confidential sources?

But not when those sources may have committed a crime.

Should a journalist give a promise of confidentiality and go to jail to protect the identity of a pedophile, a murderer? For what? For a news story? "Inside the Mind of a Child Rapist". Right.

[drmomentum[$]]

realtraveller said

Judith Miller is so arrogant that she thinks that her personal promise is more important than the grand jury investigation.

It's called integrity. You have to have a strong sense of self to have it. Without that, it would just be called stubbornness.

I can't say I like this new fashion of using "child molester" in arguments all the time. A variation on the "devolving to Hitler" USENET affliction. Even more disconcerting when we cut to the chase and just start out with the child molester talk.

-JP

[AuntieEmma[$]]

And if I'm reading this right, realtraveler is (inadvertently?) comparing White House officials to pedophiles and murderers. Even I wouldn't go that far, much as I dislike the White House folks.

[realtraveller]

drmomentum said

It's called integrity. You have to have a strong sense of self to have it. Without that, it would just be called stubbornness.

I can't say I like this new fashion of using "child molester" in arguments all the time. A variation on the "devolving to Hitler" USENET affliction. Even more disconcerting when we cut to the chase and just start out with the child molester talk.

-JP

Okay. How about internet hacker? Identity thief? Graffiti vandal? Choose the crime on which you choose to hypothesize.

I don't see it as a matter of integrity to defy a federal court order. In that case, I suppose Judge Roy Moore and Governor George Wallace also have a high degree of integrity and a 'strong sense of self'. This kind of activity is called 'feeling you are above the law'.

[erik_kosberg]

Judith Miller is in jail but Karl Rove still gets to show up for work at the White House. Isn't Bush's inaction at least as much of an obstruction of justice as Judith Miller's behavior?

[Redlass]

Is it above the law to go to jail for the crime you are accused of?

It might be a violation of the law, but it isn't being exempt from it.

Do I think she should go to jail? Well, yes. Do I think she should reveal her source? No.

Two different questions.

[drmomentum[$]]

realtraveller said

Okay. How about internet hacker? Identity thief? Graffiti vandal? Choose the crime on which you choose to hypothesize.

Ooo! I've got one. How about White House putting politics above everything else to the point where a high ranking member who collects a paycheck but was never elected spends his time furthering an extreme agenda and attacking the president's detractors to the point where he may have commited treason?

Cause for concern? No - if there were no journalists to tempt hardworking government employees, there would be no scandals.

I don't see it as a matter of integrity to defy a federal court order. In that case, I suppose Judge Roy Moore and Governor George Wallace also have a high degree of integrity and a 'strong sense of self'.

I was agreeing with your use of the word "arrogant" and giving further description. Yes, I would agree that the people you list are also arrogant and have a strong sense of self.

[drmomentum[$]]

Considering it further, I suppose it is possible ot have integrity without being arrogant. I think I would have to know the person better to make that call. But certainly, to form a strong moral code and adhere to it, you have to have a sense of who you are, and what your place is in the world.

I don't see how you can argue that Judith Miller does not adhere to a strong moral code. She certainly seems to be following through on her professed beliefs. What, other than integrity, would that be called? Clearly she believes that it serves a greater good that her word is worth something.

We don't know where she draws the line. And we would all probably draw that line in different places.

As I said before (I guess I have to repeat it) it depends on what value you place on your word, and your trustworthiness.

You might say "what if lives are at stake?" But hypothetical cases are often just too cute. Things are not certain in the real world and I would argue that for cases where you might say "the greater good requires that I divulge my source." you might just be rationalizing to get yourself out of a moral bind.

There's no way of knowing this from hypotheticals, I don't think.

[poseidon]

I have mixed feelings considering this. At one point, I understand that the only way that reporters can sometimes get to the truth is via journalist-confidential source relationship.

I believe in four rules of confidence:

doctor-patient - to treat a patient properly, the doctor must have the confidence of the patient.

lawyer-client - same deal. To properly defend a client, a lawyer must be able to know the truth.

clergy-layperson - If someone is confessing sin to a priest (or whatever), there needs to be this priviledge there so that the person can freely exercise the rules of his/her religion. Stating that, one would hope that the clergy would attempt to convince the layperson that trying to right the wrong is the best medicine.

spouse-spouse - I think this goes without saying.

Stating that, I don't see the same level of legal confidence required for a reporter. My guess is that reporters would probably like to think they're that important, but I frankly don't see getting a story as equal importance to the above.

IMM, we have a civic duty to report the criminal actions of others.

[wivabef]

drmomentum said

I can't say I like this new fashion of using "child molester" in arguments all the time. A variation on the "devolving to Hitler" USENET affliction. Even more disconcerting when we cut to the chase and just start out with the child molester talk.

-JP

Hate to go off topic, but for my own "integrity" I want to make it very clear that whenever I have brought up child molesters, the topic is indeed about child molesters.

I don't want to see an important topic become demeaned .

Back to the topic at hand.

[brian_igo]

drmomentum said

I don't see how you can argue that Judith Miller does not adhere to a strong moral code. She certainly seems to be following through on her professed beliefs. What, other than integrity, would that be called? Clearly she believes that it serves a greater good that her word is worth something.

On what basis do you project this motive? There are many reasons why Judy Miller would choose jail over revealing her source and what he or she said. She might be acting out of her read of ethical principle. She could also be putting herself forward as a martyr to enhance her own reputation, or to protect conversations she had with this source which might not reflect so kindly on her journalistic principles. She could also be protecting the source because she places a greater value over future information she or he can give (and may well be more likely to give after she's taken this bullet) than spending a few weeks in jail.

Miller invites this skepticism because in the past she has blatently put her career advances over the ethical standards of the profession. She has also carved out her name in the public eye and used her fame to protect her against willful breaches of journalism standards that would get a lesser reporter fired. (Make no mistake, if anyone but Judy Miller had written the half-truth stories she did in the run up to the war in Iraq, the Times would have thrown them out of the building. Ditto for the scathing reports from Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns on Miller's work as an embedded reporter during the invasion. Only a Pulitzer and a bestseller seperate Judy Miller from Jayson Blair.)

I am most troubled by the incredible lengths to defend Miller among many in the chattering class. This is not Watergate. It is a mirror reflection of Watergate, opposite at every turn and reason. It is not a whistleblower case, no matter what the Op-Ed of the WSJ tries to say. This was a "high administration official" using the special status society gives to journalists to destroy the career of an innocent public servant and endanger national security operations.

Here's a question I haven't seen asked yet. If you're a reporter and someone says they want to tell you something off the record, are you obligated to keep that confidence no matter what the person says? At the core, that is the question here. If our hypothetical criminal said "off the record, I'm going to kill that bitch tonight" is the trade of journalism or the public served by keeping that confidence?

There has been a drumbeat that revealing the source and material in the Plame case will destroy a journalist's ability to report what is really happening. But what will happen to the public trust if this privilidge is used as a weapon to hurt innocent people? If confidentiality is used in this way to attack a political or ideological opponent, can the public believe in the integrity of the press?

Instead of worrying about who will speak to them, perhaps Miller's defenders should wonder who will trust what they write and say.





Brian

[drmomentum[$]]

brian_igo said

On what basis do you project this motive?

Her actions to me seem consistent with someone who actually believes they should protect their source.

It's the simplest explanation, but I could be convinced otherwise in the face of some sort of evidence. I hadn't seen anything argued here or evidence given that Ms. Miller doesn't actually believe she should protect her source.

If she's doing this completely cynically, it seems like an easier path to the headlines would be to just make an announcement. Why not do that?

Or am I supposed to assume it's pathological?

-JP

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I agree -- the simplest explanation seems like the best one here. There's no reason that I can see to suspect weird or sinister motives.

[poseidon]

AuntieEmma said

I agree -- the simplest explanation seems like the best one here. There's no reason that I can see to suspect weird or sinister motives.

But they're more fun.