Journalists And The Plame Case

Sam Smith has a fascinating column in Editor & Publisher on the Plame case — the case that won’t go away (and we predict it won’t even with the naming of a new Supreme Court nominee).

Read the entire article, but here are some key points of this article titled Reporter Malpractice, Texas Hold-em & the Plame Game:

Judith Miller is in the slammer, and the consensus among journalists and news agencies is that her jailing represents a dangerous assault on press freedoms. Most commentators rightly note that confidentiality is essential to effective investigative reporting, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s decision to kill two stories over fear of legal retribution is offered as evidence that the nuclear winter is upon us already.

However, it strikes me that the Plame/Miller/Cooper debacle is being framed in way that tells us more about the current psychology of the news industry than it does the actual merits of the case. In short: In what way is the Judith Miller case (and the one involving Matt Cooper) even about journalism?

For a legitimate confidentiality claim, he writes, there are at least three conditions that must be met. These conditions include the reporter actually acting as a JOURNALIST and within the context of story development:

“Sourceâ€? isn’t a job title, and just because someone was a source last month and might well be a source again next month, it doesn’t mean that the person is a source this month if there’s no story being pursued. Source confidentiality isn’t like popularized conceptions of diplomatic immunity.

Exactly. On the two chain newspapers on which the TMV worked as a staff reporter the “source” refered to a specific article and confidentiality was protected due to the source’s participation in that story.

The third condition, Smith says, is that the source must be actually giving some info for the story. Smith then gives a scenario using the Miller case.

We’ll spoil the nuances of Smith’s argument if we detail it all here. Read the WHOLE POST. But here’s his key conclusion:

Reporters are obligated to the truth, and allowing themselves to be pimped by those who would use them as tools against the truth is a crime against the profession and the society it serves. Protecting that which you are bound to expose is malpractice.

As somebody who has given and honored his word many times, I can respect that somebody is willing to go to jail rather than do something they see as reflecting on their reputations. But in doing so, you may be acting on a personal principle, not an industry code. The distinction is important.

There are few things in our entire culture that are more essential than the freedoms codified in the 1st Amendment. Press freedom isn’t just important to democracy, it’s a prerequisite. Further, I’m all in favor of doing anything we can to encourage whistle-blowers in this age of high governmental and corporate kleptocracy. Most editorials and comments I’m seeing this last week or two insist that the Plame case is about just these issues.

I don’t buy it. From where I sit, Miller went to jail not to protect the name of a source, but to protect the name of a former source who may be a felon.

Indeed: something is quite strange about the Miller aspect of this case. We have no idea what it is…but it will most certainly eventually come out…

FOOTNOTE: In articles, blogs and left and right talk radio (TMV was driving for 6 hours yesterday to and from LA and listened to various talk show hosts) people on the left and right suggested that a Supreme Court nomination and battle will wipe the Plame/Rove story from the front pages and no one will care anymore.

We predict that won’t happen. For several reasons:

1. There are too many quotes from GOPers and White House sources in stories saying in effect “Thank God, now we’ve changed the subject with the Supreme Court nomination.” Editors read those stories too. They will make sure the story gets prominent play due to those very quotes. Anyone who has worked in the news media (liberal or conservative) will tell you that editors don’t like to feel they are being manipulated. The GOP sources would have done better to have skipped those comments. As Howard Dean once learned, sometimes you do better if you close your mouth.
2. Rove is a key political figure. He has gotten tons of press coverage over the years — big stories in newspapers and news magazines. There is a kind of journalist storyline that you see all the time: the press details the rise and success of someone, and then it details their decline — and possibly their comeback. You see that all the time during campaigns. The POLITICAL story here centers on whether there is some kind of decline of Rove (jail time; being exposed in the end even if there is no jail time). Also, there are subsidiary stories that might eventually get bigger play such as the impact of the Plame revelation on intelligence officers and operations around the world. (We can just see the Sy Hersh story now..)
3. Scandals where someone could go to jail, in the end not have to go to jail, etc. are always of interest not just to editors but to readers and viewers.
4. Polls show Americans are FOLLOWING this story and have strong feelings on it.

So we could be wrong on this — but truly don ‘t think we are: the Plame/Rove story has “legs” and although it doesn’t have as many legs as the collective Supreme Court, they’re quite strong legs — and to editors and reporters journalistically sexy legs.