I have to disagree with Kevin on this one:
The Washington Monthly: "You either support the right of reporters to shield their sources or you don't, and your opinion shouldn't vary based on whether (a) you dislike the reporters in question or (b) you'd like the information they're hiding to become public because you think it would be embarrassing to George Bush.
As it happens, I favor the passage of a federal shield law for reporters that would protect their right to conceal their sources. Today, we don't have one (although some states do). If Miller and Cooper are sent to jail, it will have a chilling effect on the ability of reporters to aggressively cover government malfeasance, and in the end I think that's way more important than the details of this particular case. God knows we don't need the press to become even more timid than they already are on this score."
This strikes me as overly simplistic. Just as in a criminal trial it's important to consider intent, you have to do the same when a reporter (or anyone fulfilling that role) wants to protect a source. Here the issue is not so much the reporter's intent, but the intent of the source and the nature of the truth that is being revealed. For example, "Deep Throat" wanted to reveal true government malfeasance. This is a far cry from the current case, where it appears that the source of the information was someone in power, and rather than trying to uncover any kind of malfeasance the goal was nakedly to destroy the career of an intelligence agent, not to mention potentially put her life in danger along with anyone she may have had contact with.
We can actually simplify this somewhat-- consider the relationship in both cases of the source vs. the party whose secrets are being divulged. If the source is someone in a position of weakness, then by all means he should be fully protected. However, if the source is in a position of power relative to the person or institution being exposed, then I think we have another question here entirely. In a case like that the reporter is not serving any kind of noble enterprise. Rather, I would argue that he (or she) is simply being used as a tool to crush someone who for whatever reason is inconvenient to those in power. By protecting the reporter, you're only serving to protect those in power as well.
As for the argument that jailing Miller/Cooper will have a "chilling effect," well God help us if they're held up as shining examples of aggressive coverage of government malfeasance. I would like to think that rather than having a chilling effect, maybe if they spend some time in the slammer then other reporters will think twice when they're asked to be an accessory to a crime.
Posted by Jason at June 27, 2005 10:27 PM