Others May Follow 'LA Times' and Keep Names of Sources Off Computers

By: Joe Strupp A sampling of newspaper editors nationwide shows most agree with the new Los Angeles Times directive to staffers to avoid identifying anonymous sources in computer files or e-mails -- a clear reaction to last week's jailing of reporter Judith Miller and the recent legal wrangling that led Time Inc. to reveal Matt Cooper's source in the same case. Cooper had argued against that.

When asked, most editors told E&P that they would consider a similar policy, noting that reporters notes, e-mails, and computer files are more likely to come under subpoena by prosecutors seeking source material following the Miller/Cooper case.

At the same time, none said they had recently held hot stories -- as Cleveland Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton now says he has done -- for fear of putting reporters in legal jeopardly.

A top Gannett executive, meanwhile, has reminded reporters that not all "confidential" sources should be protected all the way to court.

But clearly editors are growing concerned about the handling of the paper, or computer, trail on confidential sources. "I think it is something we should look at, limiting naming anonymous sources in inter-office e-mail," said Tim Franklin, editor of The Sun in Baltimore, which like the Los Angeles Times is owned by Tribune Company. "I think there is a lot of merit to doing that. Office e-mail is becoming the target of investigators and e-mail can sometimes be misinterpreted. Sometimes it is just easier to have that conversation in person or by phone."

Other editors agreed, although none had gone to the level of the Times' effort of issuing an order just yet. "I'm sure we'll look at it," said Walt Stallings, senior deputy editor/news at the Dallas Morning News. "I'm sure that will be reviewed. There have been some discussions with corporate counsel." Adds Dennis Ryerson of The Indianapolis Star, "I think it's wise to consider that."

At the San Diego Union-Tribune, staffers have long been instructed to kept the names of a confidential sources out of notes, a policy that could make its way to computers. "The computer is something I will be looking into also," says Karin Winner, Union-Tribune editor. "I don't think it is a safe method anymore to use. There are too many hackers."

At The Detroit News, Managing Editor Sue Burzynski, agreed. "I can see where you might want to go that way," she said about the Times directive. "If they start subpoenaing computer files, I can see doing that. At least discussing it."

But, across town at the Detroit Free Press, Editor and Publisher Carole Leigh Hutton warned against allowing the Cooper/Miller court rulings to alter the reporting process. "We have to be careful not to change the way we operate too much in reaction to one ruling," she said. "I'd have to think about that a little bit more."

Editors also weighed in on the surprising move by Editor Doug Clifton of The Plain Dealer, who told E&P last week that he had held off publishing two stories based in part on confidential documents out of fear that they might prompt subpoenas or threats of jail.

None of those who spoke to E&P would criticize Clifton, saying each case is up to the editor involved to decide. "I don't know the full story," says Winner. "He must think there is the possibility of the same thing happening to his reporters. Sometimes all the reasons are not made public." Amanda Bennett of The Philadelphia Inquirer echoed those sentiments, noting, "Doug Clifton is a really good editor and he has to make choices based on whatever he has."

No one had yet held or killed a sensitive story in the wake of Cooper/Miller. "They were not the sole source, but they provided context," Rick Rodriguez, editor of The Sacramento Bee, said about documents used in a story that ran Friday related to the arrest of some local suspects allegedly tied to al Qaeda. "We had a lot of discussion whether or not to use them."

In Baltimore, where The Sun published a package of stories Sunday related to poor security at the Port of Baltimore, Editor Franklin met with Publisher Denise Palmer on Friday to discuss whether to run the stories, which were based in part on confidential documents.

"It did complicate the discussions about whether or not to publish," Franklin said about the Cooper and Miller rulings. "Whether or not we might be subpoenaed or if we open ourselves up to jail time." Franklin said the decision was made to go forward, but only after the editors were convinced that the Maryland shield law would protect them, and after reporters were ordered to do some additional reporting to confirm some facts.

Other editors noted further examples of how the Cooper and Miller rulings are affecting their day-to-day work. Ryerson said he saw the impact last Saturday when he ran into an Indianapolis city council member at a public meeting who asked if source protection would remain solid. "He asked me if they were going to be able to still talk to our reporters," Ryerson said. "Would they be able to provide information for fear of being pin-pointed."

In San Diego, meanwhile, editor Winner showed concern over anonymous sources used in wire copy, especially from Washington, D.C. She made clear she planned to better scrutinize such stories, even asking wire editors if they could insert a line explaining to readers why a source was being anonymous. "We use so much wire copy that uses anonymous sources and we don't know who they are," she explained. "I am watching that more closely and having more discussions with or editors about it."

Still, most editors said they would make getting the news out the most important thing, albeit with tighter scrutiny than before. "It raises the level of conversation in the newsroom," admits Stallings of the Morning News. "But I think if you've got the story, you'll [still] go with it."

As newspapers deal with the fallout from last week's jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and reluctant disclosure of an anonymous source by Time's Matthew Cooper, at least one newspaper chain is reminding its journalists that not all confidential sources, under certain circumstances, will remain confidential.

In a column for an internal employee newsletter posted Friday on Gannett's Web site, Phil Currie, Gannett senior vice president/news, reminded staffers of the company's Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms. He noted that the Principles do allow for unnamed sources under certain, careful circumstances, because certain circumstances can require that. At the same time, another Principle states: 'We will obey the law.'"

Currie then went on to note that the same list of principles urges reporters to make clear to sources the "level of confidentiality," even listing three degrees of confidential protection.

"Make clear to sources the level of confidentiality agreed to," Curries quotes the policy as saying. "This does not mean each option must be discussed with the source, but each party should understand the agreement. Among the options are: (a) The newspaper will not name them in the article; (b) the newspaper will not name them unless a court compels the newspaper to do so; (c) the newspaper will not name them under any circumstances."

In his column, Currie adds, "This understanding alone can help sources know to what degree the protection will be extended. Frankly, some circumstances do not merit going to 'level c,' and everyone should be clear on that."

Currie did not respond to a call seeking comment.