In a move that likely shocked journalists and news organizations around the country, a federal judge on Friday ordered The New York Times Co. to disclose confidential sources in columns that discussed whether former Fort Detrick scientist Steven Hatfill was involved in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
The order -- which the Associated Press reported Monday, the day the order was made public -- by U.S. Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady is part of Mr. Hatfill's libel
lawsuit against the newspaper related to a series of articles by columnist Nicholas Kristof in 2002.
By today , the Times would have to disclose the identities of three of Mr. Kristof's sources, including two FBI sources who allegedly told the Times that Mr. Hatfill was one of a limited number of people with the access and technical expertise to manufacture the anthrax, and that he failed several lie-detector tests.
Mr. Hatfill's lawyers said they need to question the sources to see if Mr. Kristof's reporting was accurate, the AP reported. The judge said Virginia law gives reporters only limited immunity from disclosing sources, and that privilege is outweighed by Mr. Hatfill's right to proceed with his lawsuit.
A spokeswoman said the paper will appeal the ruling, the AP said, and Mr. Kristof said he'll continue to protect his sources.
In 2001, authorities identified Mr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" in the anthrax mailings that killed five people and sickened 17. In the 1990s, he worked as a scientist in the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the Army's biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick.
Ms. Baird shows her true colors when she concludes her column, saying:
Hearing the judge's order Monday raised my eyebrows, and those of several of my colleagues. This case and recent similar ones, such as the Valerie Plame/ Judith Miller legal battle, push against what are known as shield laws, laws that "shield" journalists from having to reveal confidential sources.
To me, it's scary that the public and government officials may start to see a promise
of confidentiality as risky.
One of journalism's core roles is as a watchdog, protecting the public by exposing wrongdoing, and many times stories that do so depend on knowledgeable sources providing information the reporter couldn't otherwise get.
Precedents set that a reporter's word isn't always good -- he or she could promise confidentiality but then be forced to reveal sources -- hinder the media's ability to serve this function.
In the world of journalism, a (kept) promise of confidentiality is a powerful tool that when used faithfully can open dozens of doors but when broken just once, even begrudgingly, can close thousands.
If only her world were so clear cut.
The Plame affair dealt with the potential crime of outing an agent of the United States Intelligence communitee, this case is clearly a case of mistaken identity and witch hunting. When the newspapers of the world once again take to being watchdogs and expose all wrongdoing not just the wrong doing of the candidate against their liberal beliefs I might be inclined to be fearful for your professional opinions. Otherwise the shielding of sources that leak classified material and place our country at risk is something I am not concerned with protecting.
Ms. Walker-Baird and her colleagues can no-longer hide behind undisclosed “sources” that leak materials or information. They don’t have to expose their sources in the articles they write but they shouldn’t be allowed to protect them from prosecution when their “evidence” turns out to be false or obtained illegally.
No comments:
Post a Comment