|
NYTV
Former CBS Newser Defies Court, Won't Reveal Sources
MORE
NYTV
When Jim Stewart stepped down from CBS News in November 2006 after some 16 years of reporting on a range of topics for the Tiffany Network, the longtime Washington-based correspondent retired to the warmth of Florida. Now, depending on a judge’s ruling in an ongoing case, Mr. Stewart could be spending a part of his golden years in a much less sunny position—namely in contempt of a federal court.
In legal documents filed on the eve of the holidays, Mr. Stewart, citing promises of confidentiality, continued to defy a judge’s order to reveal the names of his sources for a series of reports he produced in 2003 for CBS News about the F.B.I.’s investigation into the domestic anthrax attacks of 2001.
If U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton decides in the coming months to hold Mr. Stewart in civil contempt for his defiance, the case, which lately has been unfolding largely under the news radar, could become one of the more tortured—and high-profile—media soap operas of the new year.
And, in the wake of the Valerie Plame affair, in which The New York Times’ Judith Miller served jail time for her own refusal to give up sources, it could offer additional ammunition to advocates of a federal shield law—which would increase journalists’ legal right to protect their sources in court. Norman Pearlstine, the former editor in chief of Time Inc. who earlier this year wrote a book about confidential sources, media law and his pivotal role in the Valerie Plame affair, told NYTV that Mr. Stewart’s case “is a perfect example of why we need a federal shield law.”
Some back story: In the summer of 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft named Steven Hatfill, a former government scientist, as a “person of interest” in the government’s criminal investigation into the anthrax attacks. Roughly a year later, Mr. Hatfill filed a civil lawsuit alleging that by talking about him to reporters, FBI and DOJ staffers had violated his rights under the federal Privacy Act—a 1974 law that restricts the public disclosure of certain information about government employees.
Over the course of several months in the summer of 2003, Mr. Stewart, who was then covering counterterrorism for CBS News, produced three Evening News reports about the investigation and the FBI’s ongoing surveillance of Mr. Hatfill, whom many authorities considered to be a top suspect. According to court documents, Mr. Stewart’s reporting relied, in part, on four confidential sources at the F.B.I.
Fast-forward four years. This past August, with Mr. Hatfill’s lawsuit still unresolved, Judge Walton ruled that Mr. Stewart and a handful of other reporters who had covered the story—including Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek, Brian Ross of ABC News, Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, and Toni Locy of USA Today—would be required to turn over the names of their sources.
When deposed this past September, Mr. Stewart declined to do so. (All the other reporters except Ms. Locy were apparently released by their sources from their pledges of confidentiality. Ms. Locy claimed in her deposition not to remember the names of her sources.) In response, Mr. Hatfill’s lawyers, who did not return phone calls from NYTV seeking comment, filed a motion to hold Mr. Stewart in contempt of court.
The contempt motion argued that Mr. Stewart’s “entrenched defiance” called for escalating fines, starting at $1,000 per day. And it added: “The risk of industry support for Mr. Stewart’s contempt calls for one additional measure: the Court should prohibit Mr. Stewart’s solicitation or acceptance of any reimbursement for any contempt fines it should levy.”
Just before Christmas, Mr. Stewart responded to the motion for contempt. In extensive court filings, he explained that he had reached out to three of his four F.B.I. sources, only one of whom had agreed to be named. That source, a former F.B.I. public affairs specialist named Edwin Cogswell, had previously been contacted by other reporters in the case and in due course had essentially outed himself.
Mr. Stewart’s legal team went on to argue that because of intervening developments—specifically, the fact that Mr. Cogswell and two other former F.B.I. and Department of Justice employees have come forward as reporters’ sources—the judge should reconsider his initial ruling compelling Mr. Stewart to identify his sources. Mr. Stewart’s lawyer, Lee Levine, declined to comment on behalf of his client. Next Page >
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Maybe the solution isn't for the media to have a Federal shield law, maybe the solution is for the media to exercise self-restraint and not allow itself to be used by government officials. In all three cases cited in this article, the Bush administration was apparently using the media to accomplish a larger political goal.
In the Plame affair, the goal was to punish a person who was critical of the Administration's Iraq policy. In the other two cases it was to make the Department of Justice look competent. Why in the world should those cases serve as a reason for a Federal shield law?
Although the author of this article and the media refer to the codification of a privilege as a "shield law" it could just as easily be called an excuse to commit defamation law. If a Federal shield law was enacted, it would mean that government officials could use a all too willing media to defame people without any fear of exposure. Defamation committed by news organizations not to reveal any great truth to the public, but to sell newspapers, or in the case of broadcast journalism, to sell commercial time on evening news broadcasts.
It is hard to think of any other industry that believes it should have the right to defame a person without consequence. No matter what reporters may think they are doing, in essence they are working for a private organization that intends to make a profit from their work. Allowing such organizations the right to print or broadcast whatever they want without fear of civil liability only encourages the kind of sensational journalism that we see today.
Right on -- why should the press be able to report on what the government is doing, positive or negative? It's hard to think of any other industry that expects to operate in a free manner like that. Mind you, it's also hard to think of any industry that is specifically empowered by the Constitution to operate in a free manner, but, hey, that's just a technicality. The free press is one of those outdated concepts like the Geneva Convention and habeas corpus that we really don't need anymore.
Sarcasm aside, as much as Jefferson grew to hate the specifics of the newspapers that reported on him, he defended the concept of press freedom, realizing a difference between the specific media outlet and the broader need for a free press. Jefferson had a wider vision than the average person, but surely we can see beyond the specific case to the greater good, can't we? Yes, sometimes a pot dealer walks free because he wasn't properly Mirandized, but that doesn't mean we should start kicking down doors and tapping phones. Or at least, it didn't used to. And, similarly, your (and my) distaste for the shills at the White House Correspondents Annual White House Dinner and Self-Promotional Daisy Chain shouldn't overwhelm the obvious benefits of the First Amendment.
The media have always considered themselfs "judge and jury", and why? they have the "last Word".
My question is this: How do we know the media is honest in their reporting? If Congress passes a law that protects these people won't they tend to use their newfound power in a way that helps them sell their media to the public rather than report the news honestly?
I believe it is helpful to make a distinction as to what is being reported. Quoting anonymous government sources to report potential criminal behavior by government employees or public figures may provide a public benefit.
I believe it is not in the public's interest to have anonymous government sources make otherwise unsupported accusations about private individuals and expect to remain anonymous.
Why should it be so difficult to recognize the difference between whistle-blowing and cowardly character assassination.
At the very least reporters should clearly explain that information from anonymous sources is potentially unreliable and may be serving a hidden agenda. Too often anonymous sources with made up rumors turn into 24/7 news stories presented as undisputed facts.
This whole concept of 1st Amendment Rights has been turned upside down. Whistle blowers are losing the battle while senior government officials freely spread misinformation to gain political advantage.
Interesting that a free press and shielding of confidential sources for the media is seen today as a "newfound power". Until Bush this was a court protected assurance for a free press. Then again until Bush there was also those quaint ideas contained in the constitution about domestic spying, habeus Corpse, not torturing prisoners.....the list is so long.
The FBI wanted to villanize Hatfill and the media was complicit in selling the story to the public. This not the "free press" that deserves the protection our founding founders intended. This was nothing more than the spread of rumors by the so-called fourth branch of government, who betrayed our trust to be objective and factual. When the media starts to report what they are told to report rather than what they have "found out" they are no longer the press, they become a goverment propaganda machine.
When the Constitution was originally written it was well understood (and commented on) that the "freedom of the press" idea was intended to cover not only newspaper employees, but the humble individual pamphleteer as well -- the fellow who wrote, printed, and distributed himself a leaflet or pamphlet outlining his views. Today the analog of the pamphleteer would have to be the blogger, who serves exactly the same function. Now, were there to be a federal shield law for journalists, it would have to apply to bloggers as well as media employees. Since anyone can readily become a blogger, and at no cost at that, it would seem that any person could avoid courtroom testimony by claiming to be a "journalist blogger" with relative ease. What would this do to the court system? The justice system? The whole idea of a special privilege to avoid testimony by journalists is thus constitutionally flawed.
Al Feldzamen
It's important to consider exactly what rights or privileges are being discussed here; so far, the people opposing a federal shield law seem to be assuming that it's a blanket protection against any punishment for printing half-truths or untruths. That is not the case at all. Libel laws still hold, and there are many consequences for reporters who consistently get things wrong - getting fired, for example.
What we're talking about is very limited: the ability of reporters in contentious situations to keep the names of sources secret. This doesn't mean they can make things up, or don't have to know for their own peace of mind where the information comes from, just that a court can't force them to reveal who told them something. Ultimately, the truth of a story is judged by the public, on the basis of all the information available – it's rare that only one media outlet covers a major story. That truth or falsehood does not depend solely on the word of one unnamed source, though such a source may be the first to make vital information available.
I am a newspaper reporter. I have used confidential sources a handful of times in nine years on the job. Each time, the person who talked to me only did so on the assurance of anonymity, because they had real reason to fear retaliation from bosses or crooks if they were identified. That confidentiality was not lightly given; I always knew who the person was, and kept their potential biases in mind when writing my story. But just because someone has a motive for spilling the beans or slipping you an internal document doesn't mean the information given isn't true. It just needs to be verified, a task made far easier when you already know the details of what you're asking about.
Though it's not common, it also happens that police and prosecutors who aren't proud of the way they've handled a case try to prevent public scrutiny by intimidating reporters with the threat of harrassing questioning. If you want to keep your incompetence out of the papers, demand to know who's talking to the media (thus scaring potential sources) and threaten reporters themselves with contempt charges for not revealing names.
Several states already have shield laws, with no noticeable decline in their reporting standards. The current effort is to get a similar standard established nationwide. That's all.
for Jim G., try to keep in mind the meida is not elected to any thing and they are not appointed to any thing, they are paid shills, and they will destroy any man or womans charater at the drop of a hat!
Bernstein and Woodward broke Watergate without a Federal shield law. Seymour Hersh broke the story of My Lai without a Federal shield law. My point is that such a law is not necessary for good journalism. The question really is whether a Federal shield law is worth the price or not. My argument is that it isn't and that a Federal shield law will lead to more and more bad reporting of the kind exhibited by Judith Miller for the New York Times.
No, members of the media aren't elected to anything. Neither are police officers, or doctors, or any of the other professions that are accorded some legal protections for doing their jobs.
Personally, I've never destroyed anyone's character. I have been there, however, when several people were revealed to be without character, and thus wrote about it. Shooting the messenger is a very old stratagem. Quite often, those complaining most bitterly about the terrible media are just sore at having been caught out.
Sure, good journalism has been done without a federal shield law; but that doesn't necessarily mean that one wouldn't be helpful. Your pizza delivery driver could make his rounds on a bicycle, but having a car makes that job much more practical. Miller's mistakes involved excessive credulity, and blind acceptance of a certain political slant. They weren't related to whether or not source names should be protected.