Media Whine, Complete with Cheese
If anyone ever doubted that our so-called liberal media had taken an extended bye in its duties to keep the American public informed, the British press's release of the Downing Street Memos on May 1, 2005 should have made it clear. The tragedy is that very little information has still to come out in the US press about the pre-war conniving by this administration, and what little has been published is usually buried on page 29, rather than displayed fully on page 1.
That's why I find it hard to get too exercised by the current media moans about the Judith Miller-Matt Cooper matter. Cooper caved in revealing his source in the Flame outing, but only after his source released him from the promise of confidentiality. Miller is going to jail for refusing to name her source.
Daniel Schorr is a pretty good example of the reasoning the media is currently using (or abusing):
Confidential sources have played a vital role in exposing wrongdoing in government from Watergate in the Nixon era to Iran-contra in the Reagan era to Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton era.
President Reagan once complained of being "up to my keister in leaks."
As one who came close to being jailed for contempt of Congress in 1976 for refusing to reveal a confidential source, I have an obvious interest in this case.
The Miller-Cooper case - in which Ms. Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to divulge a confidential source, and Mr. Cooper agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after his source gave him permission - can be regarded as part of a frontal attack on the press. One can expect many a future investigation to be dropped for fear of subpoenas for journalists to expose their sources. One can expect many a whistle-blower to think twice before blowing that whistle to a reporter.
Apparently Mr. Schorr has forgotten that the Supreme Court cleared the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times during the Nixon era, and that decision has never been struck down, and is unlikely to be struck down.
However, Mr. Schorr's comments do appear to be prescient.
A newspaper in fact has decided to put an investigation or two on hold, according to The New York Times.
The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said last night that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, was withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.
"These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.
Mr. Clifton declined to provide details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."
As I noted in an earlier post, the Star Tribune understands how this system is supposed to work:
When the requirements of justice and the duties of journalists come into irreconcilable conflict, justice must prevail if its advocates can make a compelling case 1) that the information required from the journalists is relevant to a criminal case; 2) it can't be gotten elsewhere and 3) there is an overriding interest requiring its disclosure.
What Mr. Schorr and the Cleveland Plain Dealer apparently don't understand is the difference between a leak of information which points to an illegal act and a leak which itself is an illegal act. I believe reference to the Pentagon Papers is apropos.
If the media ever decides to grow a spine and to return from its AWOL status, perhaps the American public will go back to trusting it. In the meantime, I guess we will have to be content with stories on Missing White Women.
That's why I find it hard to get too exercised by the current media moans about the Judith Miller-Matt Cooper matter. Cooper caved in revealing his source in the Flame outing, but only after his source released him from the promise of confidentiality. Miller is going to jail for refusing to name her source.
Daniel Schorr is a pretty good example of the reasoning the media is currently using (or abusing):
Confidential sources have played a vital role in exposing wrongdoing in government from Watergate in the Nixon era to Iran-contra in the Reagan era to Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton era.
President Reagan once complained of being "up to my keister in leaks."
As one who came close to being jailed for contempt of Congress in 1976 for refusing to reveal a confidential source, I have an obvious interest in this case.
The Miller-Cooper case - in which Ms. Miller was jailed Wednesday for refusing to divulge a confidential source, and Mr. Cooper agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after his source gave him permission - can be regarded as part of a frontal attack on the press. One can expect many a future investigation to be dropped for fear of subpoenas for journalists to expose their sources. One can expect many a whistle-blower to think twice before blowing that whistle to a reporter.
Apparently Mr. Schorr has forgotten that the Supreme Court cleared the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times during the Nixon era, and that decision has never been struck down, and is unlikely to be struck down.
However, Mr. Schorr's comments do appear to be prescient.
A newspaper in fact has decided to put an investigation or two on hold, according to The New York Times.
The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said last night that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, was withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.
"These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.
Mr. Clifton declined to provide details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."
As I noted in an earlier post, the Star Tribune understands how this system is supposed to work:
When the requirements of justice and the duties of journalists come into irreconcilable conflict, justice must prevail if its advocates can make a compelling case 1) that the information required from the journalists is relevant to a criminal case; 2) it can't be gotten elsewhere and 3) there is an overriding interest requiring its disclosure.
What Mr. Schorr and the Cleveland Plain Dealer apparently don't understand is the difference between a leak of information which points to an illegal act and a leak which itself is an illegal act. I believe reference to the Pentagon Papers is apropos.
If the media ever decides to grow a spine and to return from its AWOL status, perhaps the American public will go back to trusting it. In the meantime, I guess we will have to be content with stories on Missing White Women.
posted by Diane at 6:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home