News Orgs Defend Wen Ho Lee Settlement

By: Joe Strupp The New York Times' attorney who was among those mediating the unusual settlement with Wen Ho Lee last week that will pay the former government scientist $1.6 million, including $750,000 from media outlets, does not believe the payoff will set a bad precedent for news organizations' future sourcing battles.

George Freeman, assistant general counsel for the Times, was among several lawyers who brokered the settlement, in which Lee agreed to drop his civil suit against the federal government in exchange for the monetary payment. The Times was one of five news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press and ABC News, which will jointly pay $750,000 of the settlement amount.

"The fact of the matter is that the money the plaintiffs spent in this case dwarfs the $750,000 that the media entities put up as part of the settlement," Freeman told E&P Monday. "I don't see this as any type of incentive for attorneys to get money out of the media."

Editors at some of the other news outlets involved in the settlement also defended the decision, pointing out that the case had been battled in the courts for years with reporters, whose sources were sought, at grave risk. "We had fought this at every step of the way, through the courts for years, so it is not like we could find a way out as soon as it came up," said Mike Silverman, AP managing editor. "We had lost conclusively in the courts and we had asked the Supreme Court to take the case and if it had rejected that appeal, we would have been in a difficult position."

Silverman said one positive outcome is that none of the news outlets had to give up their sources, or see reporters jailed in protection of those sources. "I would hope that any potential sources would take heart that we are determined to protect them in any way," he said.

None of the news outlets involved in the settlement was a defendant in the suit, in which Lee accused the government of leaking information to news outlets related to a federal investigation into Lee's alleged spying activities. The investigation found no evidence of spying, but it resulted in Lee's lawsuit.

While the news outlets were not defendants, they were drawn into the case when Lee's attorneys subpoenaed reporters from each news organization to testify about their sources for stories written about Lee. Each had declined and most had faced contempt of court charges, including James Risen of the Times.

Freeman said the settlement was the best way for the Times to avoid hefty fines and possible jail for its reporters. "It was the best outcome given the realities of the situation. It did succeed in protecting our sources and our journalists," Freeman said. "But it is not something we would do as a first option."

He noted that the type of lawsuit that prompted the subpoenas is not likely to come up again soon, so such a settlement is not expected to be more common. "I don't think it is a precedent because I don't think that situation is going to come up often," Freeman said. "In the future, this doesn't bind anyone. This is just one way of resolving this case. The alternative was either a very hefty fine or jail. It is not like the subpoena was issued and we turned money over the next day."

Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of the Post, declined to comment on the specifics of the settlement. But he also praised the outcome as a way of protecting sources.

"I am pleased that we were able to protect our confidentiality agreements with our sources and that we will always do that," he said. When asked how the deal might impact future source protection battles, he said "I have no idea."