Anonymous Sources
Jury selection in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby perjury trial should be completed shortly and the case should commence early this week. The only prosecution so far in the Plame affair, this case is significant for several reasons, among them the tangential issue of whether reporters can be compelled to reveal the names of sources used in writing a news article. From today's NY Times:
As the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. unfolds over the next few weeks, the ways in which the case has vastly reshaped relations between reporters and high government officials will be on vivid display. ...
There is no formal code that describes the rules of engagement for officials and reporters in Washington, but a less-than-neat system evolved over decades that allowed government sources to impart information to journalists without having their identities revealed publicly. Editors, hoping to be more accountable to the public, have tried in recent years to change those practices.
It is ironic that this is the case in which the concept of anonymous sourcing is tested. For years, reporters and their sources have been shielded by the First Amendment under the theory that the public has a right to know what their government is up to. The usual scenario is that of a government employee who leaks information concerning government malfeasance and the classic example in our time has been "Deep Throat" in the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon years.
In the Plame matter, however, the scenario is the exact opposite. In this case, the Bush White House intentionally leaked the status of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee as an act of retribution against her husband for daring to expose the lies the administration used to push us to war against Iraq. Libby was no 'whistleblower' trying to alert the public to the dangers of a corrupt government, he was an agent charged to further that corruption. At least one journalist bought into the scam, but several others were recipients of the leak.
The press, whose members have served as stenographers for the White House these past six years, still doesn't get the distinction, as this article surely makes clear. The sudden concern with the First Amendment rings hollow under these facts.
As the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. unfolds over the next few weeks, the ways in which the case has vastly reshaped relations between reporters and high government officials will be on vivid display. ...
There is no formal code that describes the rules of engagement for officials and reporters in Washington, but a less-than-neat system evolved over decades that allowed government sources to impart information to journalists without having their identities revealed publicly. Editors, hoping to be more accountable to the public, have tried in recent years to change those practices.
It is ironic that this is the case in which the concept of anonymous sourcing is tested. For years, reporters and their sources have been shielded by the First Amendment under the theory that the public has a right to know what their government is up to. The usual scenario is that of a government employee who leaks information concerning government malfeasance and the classic example in our time has been "Deep Throat" in the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon years.
In the Plame matter, however, the scenario is the exact opposite. In this case, the Bush White House intentionally leaked the status of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee as an act of retribution against her husband for daring to expose the lies the administration used to push us to war against Iraq. Libby was no 'whistleblower' trying to alert the public to the dangers of a corrupt government, he was an agent charged to further that corruption. At least one journalist bought into the scam, but several others were recipients of the leak.
The press, whose members have served as stenographers for the White House these past six years, still doesn't get the distinction, as this article surely makes clear. The sudden concern with the First Amendment rings hollow under these facts.
Labels: First Amendment, the Press
posted by Diane at 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home