Time Not On Our Side, in Plame Case

By: Joe Strupp I kept hearing the same things all day Thursday. Phrases like, "caved in," "gave up" and my personal favorite, "dark day." Was June 30, 2005, a dark day for journalism? That's the day Time Inc. decided to turn over documents that would reveal a confidential source to federal investigators.

It's not September 11 or December 7, to be sure -- but for journalists fighting their fiercest battle in years to protect anonymous sourcing, it might indeed be a day that will live in infamy: The first time in memory a major news organization gave up its confidential source under threat of fine or other prosecution.

And Time appears to stand alone. While it is willing to take the easy way out in the face of anti-journalism pressure, its own reporter, Matthew Cooper, has all along stated he would go to jail if needed to protect his source, a source who revealed to him the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Judith Miller of The New York Times, who also faces jail for refusing to disclose her source for the same information, is likely to be ordered behind bars on Wednesday, July 6, when all parties meet again in U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan's courtroom.

Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine told E&P Thursday that he chose to hand over the documents, not because he did not want to pay the $1,000-per-day fine that would be imposed, but because he did not believe that journalists were "above the law." I believe him. A thousand bucks a day for a company like Time Inc. is not a major loss, especially in the face of journalistic freedom.

But saying that a news organization's refusal to hand over confidential sources simply places it above the law is not correct. Protection of confidential sources is a paramount tenet of journalism, going back decades, if not centuries. For Time to simply shrug it off is an insult to the many reporters who have gone to jail or battled in courts for years. It is offensive to any reporter who holds such protections sacred, and must in order to do his or her job.

You might as well tell a soldier to enter a combat zone without a gun or send a doctor into surgery without scalpel. Anonymous sources, while sometimes abused, are a tool necessary in today's reporting. End of story.

The fallout from this could be destructive. First, with Time wilting in the heat of government pressure, federal and local prosecutors will believe more than ever that they have a right to demand such sources, and will be even more active in trying to get them. That will tie up courts in these legal battles, meaning reporters and editors will waste even more time in the courtroom instead of out there reporting news.

Second, sourcing will dry up. Why should any source, especially in Washington, D.C., where this case occurred, believe that their confidentiality will be protected? In the past, reporters could say they will go to jail for their source and mean it. Now, a source may be told the reporter is ready to face jail if needed, but will the source then ask, "what about your bosses? Will they give me up?"

Sad to say, in many cases, the reporter will now have to say, "I don't know." Ironically, I used a confidential source, at Time, in breaking the story of Time Inc.'s capitulation on Tuesday.

In a feature story published just this week in E&P, we reported on how the recent crackdowns on anonymous sourcing have affected day-to-day journalism. In many cases, reporters say they have sought to use such sources less, which is likely a good thing. Still, they are needed -- and are an integral part of news coverage, especially with today's overly secretive White House. Several reporters who cover national security and the military have stated that they could not do their jobs without them.

All reporters have confidential information, some of it trivial, some of it vital, that they never report. Does this mean we are all now subject to interrogation for what we know, in addition to what we report? This is apparently the case with Judith Miller, who did not write a story about Plame. That is scary -- and unfair.

This may turn out to be the year when two of the most famous confidential sources were revealed, but there is one big difference: W. Mark Felt, the Deep Throat source of Watergate fame, offered up his identity several weeks ago voluntarily. Cooper's source, who may be divulged as early as today, is not being revealed willingly.

So, as Time hands over its documents that will give prosecutors, and likely the rest of the world, the name of its confidential source, it may as well turn in its credibility as an upstanding news outlet. From now on, I would be surprised if any source is willing to give up any inside information to Time. The sad part is, every other news organization that would likely stand up in the face of similar pressures will be affected, too.