US could jail journos
2005-07-03 12:02
Washington - An open jail cell door beckoning two top US reporters who refused to name their sources is forcing shocked reporters to question assumptions that their trade is shielded by law.
Judith Miller of The New York Times and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper have refused to tell a federal prosecutor which US administration official outed a CIA spy at the height of a row over Washington's justification for the Iraq war.
The pair had claimed the use of anonymous sources could be curtailed if they were forced to blow the official's cover, even though Miller never wrote about the story and Cooper only mentioned it in passing.
They argued that such anonymous tip-offs were vital to exposing previous government scandals, including Watergate and the furore over the Pentagon Papers, the secret record of the Vietnam War.
Miller could find herself behind bars as soon as Wednesday, when a judge has scheduled a final hearing in the case, following a Supreme Court decision last week not to hear the journalists' appeal against 18-month sentences for contempt of court.
Cooper may dodge prison, after Time overruled its reporter and handed over subpoenaed documents revealing the name of the source to the prosecutor.
Media groups and press watchdogs have warned that the bid to force journalists to breach confidentiality pacts with their sources puts US journalism in peril.
The New York Times said it was "shocking" that their reporter could end up behind bars yet had broken no laws. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press bemoaned a "travesty." Reporters Without Borders said the case was "retrograde and freedom-curtailing" and a defeat for all media.
John Watson, assistant professor of journalism at American University, said the case did raise grave questions.
"Yes, the sky is falling, but it falls every 25 to 30 years. We have learned to live with the collapsed sky on our heads," Watson said.
"It doesn't spell an end to journalism functioning as it should. It is a serious crimp in press freedom, but we will survive," he said.
In 1972, the US Supreme Court rejected a newspaper reporter's claim that he should not have to appear before a grand jury. Though a blow to the press, the decision did not prevent the appearance of many subsequent stories using anonymous sources.
Aly Colon of the Poynter Institute journalism think-tank said the Miller/Cooper case should make journalists think hard about using unnamed sources.
"The idea of offering confidentiality should be one that is very carefully considered; it should not be done with any regularity," he said.
Press freedom advocates were shocked by Time's decision to hand over documents. Some worried it could encourage courts to go over journalists' heads to challenge corporate parents which prioritise commercial concerns over journalistic considerations.
"I do think it is unfortunate what Time has done," said Colon.
"The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments," said Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc.
"That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity."
Colon argued that in cases vital to the public interest - for example, the one in question about whether the White House misled Americans to go to war in Iraq, journalistic considerations may override legal ones.
"I think there is, at times, a difference between what is legal and what is right," he said.
"I think that Judith Miller's stand up to this point shows that at least one journalist, when she makes a promise, keeps it."
The name of CIA agent Valerie Plame was first published in a column by veteran reporter Robert Novak in 2003, which cited senior administration officials.
Her husband, former US ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson, has claimed his wife was outed as punishment for his contradiction of President George W Bush's assertion in the 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.
- AFP