Full Version: Should There be a FEDERAL SHIELD LAW
QUOTE(nemov from another thread @ Jul 24 2005, 10:44 AM)
Why is Miller protecting "the" source? If the media is so angry with the Bush administration (they have been angry long before nadagate) why is Miller protecting the source? Like I have said before if this investigation hands out indictments it is likely due to grand jury testimony or some side issue that was outside the bounds of the initial investigation. That being said, who is the source Miller is protecting? No one ever discusses who it might be. Rove defenders pick on Wilson, and Rove haters focus their attention on Rove (who else?).
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=160973
QUOTE
MR. [WILLIAM] SAFIRE: First, I make that it's absolutely outrageous for Judy Miller to be in jail today for a story she did not write and for defending the right of an individual to trust her when she's talking to her about journalistic matters. She's in jail. She's suffering there. It's not a happy jail. And I visited her there. And what's this all about? The great principle at stake here is the right to keep confidences given to you by a source. Now, the government has all kinds of ways to get information--subpoenas, putting people under oath, giving them immunity to overcome the Fifth Amendment, wiretaps, all that. What do reporters have? We have one power which is the power of trust that people have in being able to talk to us and "not get involved." This is a powerful thing. Attorneys general all over the country who have either shield laws or case laws in this state saying this helps law enforcement, this ability for trust to be established. And to kick it in the teeth the way this prosecutor has is a real danger to the public's right to get information.
<snip>
MR. [David] GREGORY: I do think that one--well, one point I disagree with Bill on is I agree that there should be a shield law, and this is an important conversation. But I think what has to accompany that is the debate we have within journalistic circles about when we promise confidentiality and whether it is to put a check on government or whether it is to be a vehicle for what may have been an egregious abuse of power here in smearing someone who's part of our national security apparatus, and I think journalists have to be very careful about this idea of confidentiality, and I'm a little bit troubled, and perhaps at the facts of this case, that there is not more of a national outcry on behalf of Judy Miller and on behalf of the facts of this case.
<snip>
MR. [David] GREGORY: I do think that one--well, one point I disagree with Bill on is I agree that there should be a shield law, and this is an important conversation. But I think what has to accompany that is the debate we have within journalistic circles about when we promise confidentiality and whether it is to put a check on government or whether it is to be a vehicle for what may have been an egregious abuse of power here in smearing someone who's part of our national security apparatus, and I think journalists have to be very careful about this idea of confidentiality, and I'm a little bit troubled, and perhaps at the facts of this case, that there is not more of a national outcry on behalf of Judy Miller and on behalf of the facts of this case.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8658626/
I really liked NYT conservative columnist, Bill Safire’s, words on this issue yesterday on Meet the Press. I also included a paragraph from David Gregory. It seems to me that a thread on protecting confidential sources, Judy Miller, etc. may be as appropriate as the one on Rove and Libby.
Nemov seems to be asking for information now, but I fear such could, in the long run, limit the amount and quality of information reporters are able to obtain. Hence, the public would be less informed.
Questions for Debate:
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 25 2005, 07:02 PM)
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
In order then:
1) Except in very rare cases of national security I feel it is more important for journalists to be able to obtain information. A free press acts as a check on government tyranny and it is an important role in society that should be protected.
2) Yes.
3) Indeed there should be. There should also be outrage at what the Bush administration did in this case. Outing a covert CIA agent in an act of exceedingly petty political revenge. Typical but despicable.
Since this hasn't attracted much response, I'll answer my own questions. 
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
In the short term it may be important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get information. In the long term this will probably mean that reporters get less information to dissiminate to the public. There is real potential her for disruption of the flow of information. Fitzgerald's jailing of Miller sets a horrible precedent.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
Yes. In my opinion protection of sources is a cornerstone of American journalism.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing.
I personally share Safire's outrage. While it is important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get information, it is not necessary for Judy Miller to sit in jail. It has been 20 days now. I think Miller's supporters, should bombard Bush with requests for a pardon.
Note: I suffer under no illusion that Bush would actually pardon Judy Miller. Opponents would probably accuse him of interfering with an investigation and, in fact, he might be. Still I would get no small pleasure at seeing Bush put through hell over this matter.
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
In the short term it may be important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get information. In the long term this will probably mean that reporters get less information to dissiminate to the public. There is real potential her for disruption of the flow of information. Fitzgerald's jailing of Miller sets a horrible precedent.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
Yes. In my opinion protection of sources is a cornerstone of American journalism.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing.
I personally share Safire's outrage. While it is important for Mr. Fitzgerald to get information, it is not necessary for Judy Miller to sit in jail. It has been 20 days now. I think Miller's supporters, should bombard Bush with requests for a pardon.Note: I suffer under no illusion that Bush would actually pardon Judy Miller. Opponents would probably accuse him of interfering with an investigation and, in fact, he might be. Still I would get no small pleasure at seeing Bush put through hell over this matter.
BoF,
People might be a little confused that the debate questions don't directly address the thread title: Should there be a federal shield law?
Such a law could do two things:
1) Spell out under what conditions a journalist must reveal sources.
2) Put harsh penalties on investigators if they reveal these sources to the public.
Life imprisonment would be a good harsh penalty for leaking confidential information.
To the other questions, there isn't a big uproar about Miller's imprisonment because most people don't understand what's going on. This has happened before, but I don't think most people know this either. I'm chalking it up to not being on the radar scope, possibly because the central issue of who said what to whom isn't very important. What impact does it have on anyone's life other than the people involved? Directly it has none.
As for the people's right to know what's going on, yes, that ought to be important to everyone. But it isn't important to most -- they'd rather get pleasant fictions than harsh realities -- with exceptions.
For example, the people in Pueblo are tired of getting raw sewage shipped to their reservoir from Colorado Springs via Fountain Creek. The newspaper guy down there has raised a ruckus about how CS walks all over the people of Pueblo and the surrounding agricultural areas. If this newspaper guy gets thrown into the slammer, you bet there would be a great outcry. Unfortunately for Miller, few care because they can't feel anything.
I don't think this is out of the ordinary. We're talking about abstractions like journalistic freedom and trust, but to folks outside the circles of influence, it only means that unidentified sources in news articles might become known, and what's the big whoop about that? Well, it is a big whoop, and we know why, but the point is that most folks don't. That's because most folks aren't in circles of influence where career or even life could be at stake if identified.
It is good that conservative journalists are upset with Miller's treatment. I'm afraid that this is about as good as it can get without a federal shield law.
People might be a little confused that the debate questions don't directly address the thread title: Should there be a federal shield law?
Such a law could do two things:
1) Spell out under what conditions a journalist must reveal sources.
2) Put harsh penalties on investigators if they reveal these sources to the public.
Life imprisonment would be a good harsh penalty for leaking confidential information.
To the other questions, there isn't a big uproar about Miller's imprisonment because most people don't understand what's going on. This has happened before, but I don't think most people know this either. I'm chalking it up to not being on the radar scope, possibly because the central issue of who said what to whom isn't very important. What impact does it have on anyone's life other than the people involved? Directly it has none.
As for the people's right to know what's going on, yes, that ought to be important to everyone. But it isn't important to most -- they'd rather get pleasant fictions than harsh realities -- with exceptions.
For example, the people in Pueblo are tired of getting raw sewage shipped to their reservoir from Colorado Springs via Fountain Creek. The newspaper guy down there has raised a ruckus about how CS walks all over the people of Pueblo and the surrounding agricultural areas. If this newspaper guy gets thrown into the slammer, you bet there would be a great outcry. Unfortunately for Miller, few care because they can't feel anything.
I don't think this is out of the ordinary. We're talking about abstractions like journalistic freedom and trust, but to folks outside the circles of influence, it only means that unidentified sources in news articles might become known, and what's the big whoop about that? Well, it is a big whoop, and we know why, but the point is that most folks don't. That's because most folks aren't in circles of influence where career or even life could be at stake if identified.
It is good that conservative journalists are upset with Miller's treatment. I'm afraid that this is about as good as it can get without a federal shield law.
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
If the source is breaking the law by giving the journalist the information, there should be no protection. If Rove, Libby, or anyone leaked information illegally, the journalist should cooperate with the investigation and the illegal leakers should be punished. Journalists have a job, but passing on illegal information is just as bad as leaking to begin with.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
No... laws of confidentiality exist for a reason. Whether or not this Plame business leads to anything is irrelevant. If this were not serious business there would not be an investigation going right now.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
Here is what I do not understand. It appears as if some people are holding two different standards. One standard is… Rove is bad because he (may have) leaked illegal information. That is a fair enough argument. The other standard is… Miller is good because she is standing up for principle even though she may have been discussing illegal information with a source. To me it appears both the leaker and the journalist are both participating in illegal activity. There should be no outrage over this.
If the source is breaking the law by giving the journalist the information, there should be no protection. If Rove, Libby, or anyone leaked information illegally, the journalist should cooperate with the investigation and the illegal leakers should be punished. Journalists have a job, but passing on illegal information is just as bad as leaking to begin with.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
No... laws of confidentiality exist for a reason. Whether or not this Plame business leads to anything is irrelevant. If this were not serious business there would not be an investigation going right now.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
Here is what I do not understand. It appears as if some people are holding two different standards. One standard is… Rove is bad because he (may have) leaked illegal information. That is a fair enough argument. The other standard is… Miller is good because she is standing up for principle even though she may have been discussing illegal information with a source. To me it appears both the leaker and the journalist are both participating in illegal activity. There should be no outrage over this.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
I think the answer to what you don’t understand was on MSNBC’s Countdown last night. Although Robert Novak apparently was told twice not to use Valarie Plame’s name, he did so anyway. The law does not cover reporters outing agents, only government employees. We can’t jail Novak even if Congress passed a new law that included repoorters. Remember the thing about ex-post facto laws in the constitution:
Even though we can’t arrest Novak, I think his true character, or should I say lack of character has come to the front. My own personal opinion is that Novak outed Plame as a favor to his long time crony, Karl Rove. We may eventually jail Rove, but probably not Novak. Judy Miller, who outed no one, sure as hell doesn’t belong there.
Countdown Transcript, 7-27-05
QUOTE(nemov @ Jul 28 2005, 06:34 AM)
Here is what I do not understand. It appears as if some people are holding two different standards. One standard is… Rove is bad because he (may have) leaked illegal information. That is a fair enough argument. The other standard is… Miller is good because she is standing up for principle even though she may have been discussing illegal information with a source. To me it appears both the leaker and the journalist are both participating in illegal activity. There should be no outrage over this
I think the answer to what you don’t understand was on MSNBC’s Countdown last night. Although Robert Novak apparently was told twice not to use Valarie Plame’s name, he did so anyway. The law does not cover reporters outing agents, only government employees. We can’t jail Novak even if Congress passed a new law that included repoorters. Remember the thing about ex-post facto laws in the constitution:
QUOTE(Article1 @ Section 9, Clause 3)
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed .
Even though we can’t arrest Novak, I think his true character, or should I say lack of character has come to the front. My own personal opinion is that Novak outed Plame as a favor to his long time crony, Karl Rove. We may eventually jail Rove, but probably not Novak. Judy Miller, who outed no one, sure as hell doesn’t belong there.
QUOTE
ALLISON STEWART: Robert Novak was told not once, but twice before he outed agency officer Valerie Plame that her name was off limits. So how will that affect the investigation?
<snip>
STEWART: And “The Washington Post” report makes one other key element quite clear. According to its sources, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover officer, and he did this before Robert Novak outed Plame on July 14, 2003. While Harlow did not describe Plame as undercover, he did tell Novak not to use her name.
<snip>
STEWART: Now, if Robert Novak was not told point-black that Valerie Plame is undercover, is it still a problem for him that he leaked her name?
JIM VANDEHEI (Washington Post): It’s not a problem for him legally. The leak investigation centers on did any government officials, because if you look at the law, the law says that any government official knowingly leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, knowing that the government was trying to protect the identity. I think what we’ve learned from the CIA spokesman, who told us on the record for the first time, was that he did warn Bob Novak. Before, we had heard—I think Bob Novak even wrote a column about it in October of 2003 -- oh, that he was told—that he did not get any signals that it could put her in harm’s way or that he should not report her name. And what Harlow told us was that he said in as certain terms as he could, given that he cannot himself out a CIA operative, warned Bob Novak not to use her name.
<snip>
STEWART: And “The Washington Post” report makes one other key element quite clear. According to its sources, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover officer, and he did this before Robert Novak outed Plame on July 14, 2003. While Harlow did not describe Plame as undercover, he did tell Novak not to use her name.
<snip>
STEWART: Now, if Robert Novak was not told point-black that Valerie Plame is undercover, is it still a problem for him that he leaked her name?
JIM VANDEHEI (Washington Post): It’s not a problem for him legally. The leak investigation centers on did any government officials, because if you look at the law, the law says that any government official knowingly leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, knowing that the government was trying to protect the identity. I think what we’ve learned from the CIA spokesman, who told us on the record for the first time, was that he did warn Bob Novak. Before, we had heard—I think Bob Novak even wrote a column about it in October of 2003 -- oh, that he was told—that he did not get any signals that it could put her in harm’s way or that he should not report her name. And what Harlow told us was that he said in as certain terms as he could, given that he cannot himself out a CIA operative, warned Bob Novak not to use her name.
Countdown Transcript, 7-27-05
QUOTE
According to its sources, former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover officer
So why isn't this Bill Harlow under investigation? If he confirmed that Plame was an undercover operative, isn't that illegal?
On to the shield law.
There should be a shield law. There should be protection for whistleblowers. UNLESS they break the law when doing so. Which is exactly the point here.
Either getting to the bottom of this is important, or it's not. Apparently Judith Miller knows something that was told to her by someone. She isn't sharing who her source was or what they said. I assume that the investigators know, roughly, what was told to Miller but not who told her.
I find this one comment interesting:
QUOTE(Bill Safire)
What do reporters have? We have one power which is the power of trust that people have in being able to talk to us and "not get involved."
So you want to be a source, but you don't want to "get involved"?
In this case, you want to be a source in the possible leaking of a CIA agent's name, but you don't want to "be involved"?
At this point, we don't know why the investigators want the name of Judith Miller's source. That is a key point. If Miller got classified information from someone, then absolutely she should say who it was, since that person may have potentially broken the law. If it is something tangential to the case, then the source can be protected. The devil is in the details.
1. Which is more important, a journalists ability to obtain information from a confidential source, or a [special] prosecutor’s ability to get information from a reporter? This, as I alluded to above, may have both long term and short term answers.
Both are important and for different reasons. These days, there are far too many "anonymous sources" for us to believe much of what is printed. What motive do these sources have? Who are they? Why are they talking? Without this context, reporters lose much of their credibility. Of course, that's the reporter's business. Using anonymous sources exclusively means that you don't have much of a story (in my eyes).
For the prosecutor, of course they need access to some information about who said what, especially if that act is itself a crime, perhaps the crime being investigated.
2. Should there be a federal shield law to protect journalists and their sources?
This is already covered in most cases. Journalists are not required to out their sources unless the source is involved in a crime.
3. Should, as Safire suggests, there be public outrage over Miller’s jailing?
Since we don't know why she's being jailed, it's hard to be outraged.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.