Michael Hiltzik makes some really cogent comments as he guest blogs over at Kevin Drum’s Poolitical Animal.
Many in the press are talking as though the Cooper-Miller mess destroys their ability to recruit and exploit confidential sources, but plainly they’re not talking about confidential sources the way we think about them in the investigative journalism biz. Investigative reporters strive never to hang a story directly on quotes or commentary from confidential sources; they use the sources to guide them to privileged material such as documents, in black and white. That protects the story, and in all but the rare case, it protects the source, too.
Really, if you are trying to write honest stories about a subject such as Rove, what does offering him confidentiality do except get him to take your phone call and then lie to you?
Washington reporters seem to me to get ahead by acting as stenographers for powerful people. Once they offer source confidentiality they become “kept people” for the so-called sources. [Judith Miller, anyone?] These are not whistle-blowers they are protecting. These are the peole the real whistl-blowers should be talking about.
The “Society of Professional Journalists” is whining about the need for a federal press shield law, but they are doing nothing to train their members in how to be journalists – probably because most of the publishers would fire any real journalists on their staff.
You’re so right Rick – what difference would a new law make? I wish we could elect a law unmaking congress to clean up the mess we’ve already got. What, besides showbiz, are they teaching in journalism school nowadays?
Journalism school? Aren’t they all called “Communications degrees” now?
And whether you go to TV or newspapers depends on how good you look with make-up on, right? Matt Cooper and Judith Miller are obvious newspaper reporters.
Don’t get me wring. I have always wanted to be a newspaper writer, but I got an education anyway. I did NOT take journalism courses.
The only reason I can see for a federal reporter shield law is so that ethical journalists could refer to it when they try to get their managers to abide by their promises. The largest problem I see in Washington is that reporters are stenographers for leaks rather then actual reporters. Then management, depending on the short-cut to fake news that leaks represent, pay connected reporters more and hire fewer investigative reporters to save money.
That means that for a reporter to succeed in his own career, he has to be acceptable to the people he is covering. As long as the fake reporters fill the news hole in a timely manner, management doesn’t care. They just want the news hole filled each day at the lowest possible cost and no damage to advertising revenue.
While that seems to me to be a cynical and negative view of the current situation of Washington journalism, I see nothing else that explains the utter failure of the media to cover things like the Downing Street Memos and the lies told to send us to the failed war in Iraq.
There is a de facto shield law. Judges, juries and prosecutors have historically respected journalists’ moral obligation to shield their sources. I have repeatedly posted requests for anyone to inform me of ANY case wherein a reporter who outs government wrongdoing through secret sources has been forced to serve time or reveal their sources. If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it.
Having said that, the only good reason I could see to have a journalists’ shield law would be to codify the exceptions to it. The fact that no exemption exists in cases such as the Plame case would be codified, and the journalists would have to stop whining that a stenographer/journalist who assists in committing a crime should be able to shield their co-conspirator “sources”.