In July 2003, Robert Novak published a column outing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. Following his column, several other journalists like Matthew Cooper reported the same information.
Because it is illegal to leak such information, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leak. Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists, including Matthew Cooper, concerning alleged conversations the reporters had with confidential sources. Cooper filed a motion to quash his subpoena, but a judge rejected the request. Cooper then refused to comply, and was ordered to jail and to pay a $1,000 fine per day until he obeyed. After a failed attempt at an appeal, Cooper agreed to testify. He told the New York Times that he had received “in somewhat dramatic fashion…an express, personal release from my source” that allowed him to comply with the subpoena.
If I were put in that same situation, I think I would react like this: When I first received the subpoena – which I knew would force me to disclose my confidential sources – I was in a state of shock. Having never been in such a predicament before, my heart pounded so loudly I could practically hear it in my ears and I was almost in fight or flight mode. My brain went into overdrive, and all I could think was, “How do I get out of it?” After telling myself to breathe and to calm down, I immediately called my lawyer. He advised me of my rights and told me that he would try to take care of the subpoena.
When we got off the phone, I pondered the situation a bit more. If I actually was forced to testify, would it really make that much of a difference for me? I didn’t have to think about that question long before I knew that without a doubt the answer was a resounding “yes.” Revealing my confidential sources would cause a chilling effect that would have an adverse effect on, what Philip Meyer called, the “reward system” between my sources and myself. And it could easily cause them to lose their trust in me. Few sources would want to give me information if they thought I would repeat it before a grand jury, after all. And then, as Newspaper Association of America President John Sturm put it, “Citizens [would] not receive the information to which they are entitled and the public interest isn’t served. The free flow of information is crucial to a well-informed citizenry and is often the only real-time check on government power.”
In the process of pondering the situation, I also thought back to a quote I’d heard recently, from Eduardo Bertoni of the Organization of American States. He argued that, “The right to confidentiality is essential to a journalist's work in performing the important public service of collecting and disseminating information.”
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that, short of gaining permission from my source, I needed to fight the subpoena, even if that meant possibly going to jail.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
According to Reporters Without Borders, an organization fighting for press freedom, the United States ranks 40th in the world with regards to freedom of the press (with 1 being the most freedom). On the other hand, the United Kingdom ranks 25th. Given this statistic, the question becomes “How can that freedom be seen in the newspapers?” To answer this question, I will focus solely on the UK’s The Guardian and The NY Times.
One way that freedom is clearly utilized in The Guardian is through curse language in the articles. A study of the articles printed in the last two weeks shows the use of curse words more than 100 times. Broken down, this includes approximately 45 uses of the “f-word,” over 50 of the “s-word,” and even the “c-word” is used a few times. Regarding specific articles, no type of article escapes this language: “Labour on death row,” an article about the Labour Party that was published October 1, reads, “…79% of voters don't give a shit about that.” Such language is a sharp contrast to newspapers like the New York Times, where curse words are essentially non-existent. In fact, during the time I spent comparing these two papers, I have yet to find a curse word in the Times. This is probably due, in part, to the AP style used by America’s newspapers which advises writers “to find a way to give the reader a sense of what was said without using the specific word.”
Another way the lack of constraints on freedom is seen through the casual, somewhat graphic talk about sex. The Guardian contains a weekly column about sexual health and healing that, with headlines like “I Find it Difficult to Climax,” certainly do not hold back. But it is articles like “Don't criminalise young sex” and “Why women have sex,” both published in late September, that show exactly how far the British have taken their freedom. In contrast, the New York Times does not have a sex column. Nor did I find an article that graphically discussed the subject during the time that I followed the paper. What I did find, though, was a very news-oriented approach to the subject: In “When the Cool Get Hazed,” for example, the Times writes about sex in relation to hazing.
Finally, both papers use the freedom they have to push their political agendas. Alhough both newspapers lean politically left, ironically it may be the New York Times that takes the most liberties with its freedom. In articles like “Republicans Call Health Legislation a Tax Increase,” dated October 1, the Times uses tactics like emotive language and the omission of pertinent facts to advocate its Liberal viewpoint. Similarly, The Guardian, which favors the center-left Labour party, also uses its platform to promote its leftwing ideology. Articles like “Tory ties with EU extremists are sickening, says David Miliband” and large-scale coverage of the country’s Labour Conference (as opposed to smaller-scale coverage of the Conservative conference), are perfect examples.
One way that freedom is clearly utilized in The Guardian is through curse language in the articles. A study of the articles printed in the last two weeks shows the use of curse words more than 100 times. Broken down, this includes approximately 45 uses of the “f-word,” over 50 of the “s-word,” and even the “c-word” is used a few times. Regarding specific articles, no type of article escapes this language: “Labour on death row,” an article about the Labour Party that was published October 1, reads, “…79% of voters don't give a shit about that.” Such language is a sharp contrast to newspapers like the New York Times, where curse words are essentially non-existent. In fact, during the time I spent comparing these two papers, I have yet to find a curse word in the Times. This is probably due, in part, to the AP style used by America’s newspapers which advises writers “to find a way to give the reader a sense of what was said without using the specific word.”
Another way the lack of constraints on freedom is seen through the casual, somewhat graphic talk about sex. The Guardian contains a weekly column about sexual health and healing that, with headlines like “I Find it Difficult to Climax,” certainly do not hold back. But it is articles like “Don't criminalise young sex” and “Why women have sex,” both published in late September, that show exactly how far the British have taken their freedom. In contrast, the New York Times does not have a sex column. Nor did I find an article that graphically discussed the subject during the time that I followed the paper. What I did find, though, was a very news-oriented approach to the subject: In “When the Cool Get Hazed,” for example, the Times writes about sex in relation to hazing.
Finally, both papers use the freedom they have to push their political agendas. Alhough both newspapers lean politically left, ironically it may be the New York Times that takes the most liberties with its freedom. In articles like “Republicans Call Health Legislation a Tax Increase,” dated October 1, the Times uses tactics like emotive language and the omission of pertinent facts to advocate its Liberal viewpoint. Similarly, The Guardian, which favors the center-left Labour party, also uses its platform to promote its leftwing ideology. Articles like “Tory ties with EU extremists are sickening, says David Miliband” and large-scale coverage of the country’s Labour Conference (as opposed to smaller-scale coverage of the Conservative conference), are perfect examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)