Time to release confidential documents
Now that one of their reporters is threatened with jail time for refusing to testify to a grand jury in the Valerie Plame leak case, Time magazine has decided to hand over papers regarding reporter Matthew Cooper's confidential sources. Read more at Yahoo! News. This will most likely help Cooper avoid imprisonment, but at what cost?
This is a difficult case. On one hand, Cooper and Judith Miller -- a reporter for the New York Times -- clearly seem to be scapegoats in this case. They never went public with the information that they collected from their sources. Yet Robert Novak, the columnist who actually decided to jeopardize U.S. counterintelligence efforts and kill the career of a C.I.A. covert operative by releasing her name, isn't being forced to testify. If anyone should be facing jail time, it's him. Instead, the attention is focused on two reporters who decided not to out Plame.
For that reason alone, I object to the pressure on Cooper and Miller. But beyond that, I believe strongly in the value of anonymous sources for journalists. In many cases, it is the only way to get the vital facts about important, but politically sensitive, situations. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Cooper and Miller's appeal of the contempt ruling against them strikes a serious blow to the ability of the press to obtain this important information but sources who wouldn't dare to be named.
On the other hand, this is a unique case. You have a situation where the name of a C.I.A. operative was leaked, and reported, in the press. That alone is a major security breach, particularly in a time when intelligence operations are viewed as a vital part of the fight against terrorism. Even more disturbing is that one must question whether the leak was motivated by politics, and an attempt to punish Plame's husband for failing to follow the Bush Administration's story on Iraq. It is vitally important that the person responsible for the leak is identified, and their motive is discovered, so that the offender can be punished and future leaks can possibly be prevented.
However, I don't think it's appropriate to solve one problem by creating another. An effective press which can obtain relevant information is vital to the functioning of our democracy. While the identify of the Plame leaker needs to be discovered, forcing it out of Cooper and Miller is the wrong way to do it. Maybe they should start with Bob Novak, who actually published the information.
This is a difficult case. On one hand, Cooper and Judith Miller -- a reporter for the New York Times -- clearly seem to be scapegoats in this case. They never went public with the information that they collected from their sources. Yet Robert Novak, the columnist who actually decided to jeopardize U.S. counterintelligence efforts and kill the career of a C.I.A. covert operative by releasing her name, isn't being forced to testify. If anyone should be facing jail time, it's him. Instead, the attention is focused on two reporters who decided not to out Plame.
For that reason alone, I object to the pressure on Cooper and Miller. But beyond that, I believe strongly in the value of anonymous sources for journalists. In many cases, it is the only way to get the vital facts about important, but politically sensitive, situations. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Cooper and Miller's appeal of the contempt ruling against them strikes a serious blow to the ability of the press to obtain this important information but sources who wouldn't dare to be named.
On the other hand, this is a unique case. You have a situation where the name of a C.I.A. operative was leaked, and reported, in the press. That alone is a major security breach, particularly in a time when intelligence operations are viewed as a vital part of the fight against terrorism. Even more disturbing is that one must question whether the leak was motivated by politics, and an attempt to punish Plame's husband for failing to follow the Bush Administration's story on Iraq. It is vitally important that the person responsible for the leak is identified, and their motive is discovered, so that the offender can be punished and future leaks can possibly be prevented.
However, I don't think it's appropriate to solve one problem by creating another. An effective press which can obtain relevant information is vital to the functioning of our democracy. While the identify of the Plame leaker needs to be discovered, forcing it out of Cooper and Miller is the wrong way to do it. Maybe they should start with Bob Novak, who actually published the information.
posted by N at 11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home