NYT: Most Editors Would Publish Articles Based on Leaks (re. Plain Dealer)

[DeepModem Mom]

Most Editors Say They'd Publish Articles Based on Leaks
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 11, 2005


In the wake of a decision by the editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer to withhold two articles based on leaked government documents for fear of criminal prosecution, editors of major newspapers said last week they saw no reason to back off such stories.

A number of these editors said they were baffled by the paper's move.

Paul Steiger, managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that "if documents come to a reporter or news organization and the reporter has not done anything illegal to get the documents, I cannot understand what the basis for a criminal prosecution would be."...

***

The publication of accurate information, even information that the source was not authorized to provide, is not a crime in most jurisdictions. But as the Time case shows, a news organization can be subpoenaed, and fined or even held in criminal contempt, for refusing to turn over documents that could identify a source who may have broken the law....

***

One example of the level of concern about government and private efforts to unmask sources is a new ethics policy at The Los Angeles Times, to be issued this week, which instructs journalists to "never enter into any company computer unnamed sources."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/business/media/11paper.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. Methinks the Plain-Dealer

is trying to make a point and a very good one at that. It is bringing attention to the issue of unnamed sources in a very cogent manner. I hope all the big papers slice and dice what the P-D has done and have a good airing out and national discussion of the issue. I hope I'm right on their motives; if so, I thank them.

[LiberalEsto]

2. The Plain Dealer is a Newhouse newspaper

I worked for another Newhouse paper many years ago. They're extremely cautious to avoid lawsuits. "Don't step on powerful people's toes" was an unwritten motto. I can see what's behind the Plain Dealer's fearfulness, but I don't respect it.

[Divernan]

3. Definitive difference between Watergate and Plame outing.

In Watergate, the leaked information had to do with horrific abuse of governmental powers and threats to constitutional rights of citizens by the Nixon administration. In the Plame outing, the motivation was to destroy the credibility of an honest government official (Ambassador Wilson), to frighten other govt. officials our of honest statements critical of Bush's agenda, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, do so even at the risk of causing the deaths of Plame's network of contacts for the CIA. If I were a journalist/reporter, I would gladly go to jail to protect Deep
Throat, who served his country well by leaking info. and if I were an editor/publisher, I would definitely publish a report of an event of major significance to the country of Watergate.

I would neither report nor publish an obviously biased political smear on Wilson/Plame and would in fact report Rove for making such a slimy attempt to use the free press to forward his despicable aims.

If the Plain Dealer has two major investigative pieces of, as they describe it, significant importance to the public, they should publish them or change their name to the Intimidated Dealer.

[Javaman]

4. No one has integrity any longer...

Standing up for ones beliefs is now frowned upon in morons* America.

[warrens]

5. That's the distinction

I am under the impression that the PD got documents leaked that had been expressly sealed by a judge under a gag order. I don't think the PD worried about itself (there's really nothing they can do) but that they could be compelled to out their source, who would be in serious trouble. Make life easy for reporters in the future; fax the papers to them from a public fax machine and pay cash.

[bushisanidiot]

6. We're talking about treason, not just a "leak". This isn't a freedom of

the press issue.