Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: NY Times and National Security 14

Journal by pudge

On CNN's Reliable Sources today, the pundits were discussing the leak of national security secrets to the New York Times and subsequent story about the bank data.

I don't know if the release of the details of the program helped terrorists. The argument that it did not, however, is specious: the argument goes that everyone knew we were looking at bank data, in general, and that therefore this wasn't a secret. If so, then why did you put it on your front page? Puzzling. Obviously, this is happening in a way you figure most people didn't know, which presumably means the terrorists also didn't know.

The story itself showed that a prominent terrorist was captured in 2003 using this program, and now they really expect us to just take their word for it that the release of the program's details won't hurt any efforts to capture more terrorists?

But I am more troubled -- as usual -- by the fact that this was leaked in the first place, and that the media feels absolutely no responsibility to follow their legal obligation to reveal those sources when called upon by the court to do so.

When Hugh Hewitt offered the notion that the law should be followed -- that is, that the government should find out who leaked that information, through subpoeana to the reporters they leaked to if necessary, and that those reporters should be held in contempt if they refuse to offer the names -- the other pundits responded with shock and outrage.

Host Howard Kurtz responded, "You're saying you hope that Eric Lichtblau, sitting right next to me, has to testify before a grand jury, and if he won't reveal his sources, then you are perfectly comfortable with a judge sending him off to jail." Hewitt said he hopes Lichtblau is called before a grand jury, but didn't say whether he hopes Lichtblau goes to jail if he does not respond.

I'll answer it, though: of course he should. This is a no-brainer. He knows who has violated the law by leaking classified, potentially very damaging, national security information. It is required by federal law that he provide those names if called upon to do so in federal court, and he should go to jail if he violates that law.

Lichtblau incredibly responded: "I think the use of confidential sources is an important principle for reporters, and if the government starts criminalizing that, which is where we seem to be heading, you know, you might as well declare a moritorium on investigative reporting and end the press' role as a watchdog."

That sounds nice and everything, except for the fact that we are not talking about using confidential sources, but refusing to reveal the names of your sources when under federal court order to do so. And the government is not starting to criminalize that: it's been a crime all along.

So somehow enforcing laws we've had all along, and have enforced all along, will cause an institution that has existed all along to cease to exist.

I am not sure if the press is trying to deceieve the public, itself, or both.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NY Times and National Security More

NY Times and National Security

Comments Filter:
  • Given the absence of any sort of press sheild law ... you are essentially correct that there is nothing to prevent reporters from being called before grand juries or into court and asked under oath who their sources were.

    The big sticking point is twofold:
    First there has been a bit of a 'gentlemens agreement' between the press and prosecutors where prosecutors would only compel reporters to testify as a last resort (basicly only dragging them into the matter if there was no other way to get the information).
    • First there has been a bit of a 'gentlemens agreement' between the press and prosecutors where prosecutors would only compel reporters to testify as a last resort (basicly only dragging them into the matter if there was no other way to get the information).

      Essentially right. Not just that it is a last resort, but also that the information the government is trying to extract is of significance public importance (such as a serious breach of national security). And nothing has changed in this "agreement." N
      • Essentially right. Not just that it is a last resort, but also that the information the government is trying to extract is of significance public importance (such as a serious breach of national security). And nothing has changed in this "agreement." Nothing at all.

        And hence the problem of reporting on anything the government decides to slap a 'CLASSIFIED' label on. From one point of view those doing the leaking were acting as whistleblowers as the conduct revealed was unconstitutional (though only the cour
        • And hence the problem of reporting on anything the government decides to slap a 'CLASSIFIED' label on. From one point of view those doing the leaking were acting as whistleblowers as the conduct revealed was unconstitutional (though only the courts can really decide that) or illegal under statute.

          I couldn't care less. Classified is classified. Someone violated the law by leaking it, and must be held to account.

          I see a 'chilling effect' here.

          You see something that clearly does not exist.

          One to let reporter
          • Heard an interesting program on this on NPR this morning. What Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus had to say was particularly interesting.

            After listening I have to agree that:
            1. there is no need for press shield laws.
            2. the WaPo and NYT cases aren't really extrodinary in any way other than other avenues to find who violated the espionage act haven't really been fully explored yet.
            3. nothing to see here, move along.
            • I'll have to catch that. I've so rarely heard any reporters or editors come out against shield laws ... I am a bit surprised!

              In case it wasn't clear before, I fully agree that we should not even seriously consider (except as a means to show what it is not a good idea :-) going after the press directly, and absoultely (and this I did not discuss), we should try other avenues of discovery of the sources before subpoenas go to the press. I just lack any serious faith that there will be any success in such ef
              • To be clear Pincus didn't say everything I said above, he only said he wasn't in favor of a press shield law. The rest are my feelings based on what I've read so far.

                Still I must admit I was quite supprised to hear he didn't favor shield laws.
                • I couldn't find it. What program was it on?
                    • Awesome, thanks.
                    • Wow, they gave a significant amount of time opposing shield law protection for sources. It's so rare to see that much time given to such an opposition view. And Pincus' concern should be much more widely held: asking for special protections from the people you're supposed to be covering is a serious journalistic problem.

                      Most importantly, though, what nobody has ever demonstrated is how shield laws actually contribute to a freer press, since we know that the investigative press in DC is more robust than an
                    • Yes, that was a particularly good program. (part of why it stuck in my mind)

                      Other To The Point shows I've heard have been equally good. I always find it interesting even when some of the points of view presented make me grind my teeth.

                      BTW KUOW plays it at 11 AM weekdays

                      Pincus' point was rather important I thought. Not brought up on the program as I recall but another problem with shield laws would be defining exactly who "The Press" is and who therefore gets protection.

                      Fundamentally any citizen can act as a
                    • Yeah, this is an issue that has been talked about a lot, which is maybe why it wasn't brought up. Most states don't define journalist in strict terms, or define it in terms of what you do, not what you are. But it certainly is becoming a huge issue. I'd rather they just get rid of all such laws, but if they keep them, they must make them broad enough to cover anyone remotely performing that function.

    • Second, if the press is doing their job at all they will be reporting on things the government would rather not have as public knowledge. Those things can be anything from military secrets...

      That's an amazingly perverted view of the role of the free press in this country. Their job is to be a "watchdog" of the government, but what does "watchdog" mean? Does it mean do things for their own gratification? No. Does it mean always stick it to the government (or rather, in practice, Republican administrations)?

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close