Reporters’ rights must be shielded
If the Valerie Plame affair offers an object lesson about freedom of expression, it’s important to remember who best illustrates the values that are at stake.
Not former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who went to jail rather than disclose the source that leaked Plame’s CIA standing to her, but Plame herself.
If people in the federal government would expose an intelligence operative because her husband publicly criticized the Iraq war, imagine how risky it feels to insiders who know about government misconduct and want to blow the whistle. After Joseph Wilson, Plame’s husband, wrote a New York Times op-ed article contradicting the Bush administration’s case for war, administration officials leaked her identity to Miller and other media contacts. They were willing to ruin Plame’s career and possibly jeopardize her safety along with the safety of agents she worked with, all in the name of getting even.
Imagine, then, the trepidation felt by a conscientious government worker who wants to let the public know about corruption or misconduct within an agency but has to worry about the consequences of speaking up.
That’s where the watchdog role of a free press comes in. Inquisitive reporters and principled insiders are natural allies when there is wrongdoing to expose. The source provides key information; the reporter checks it out, follows up and tells the story. Agreeing to keep the source anonymous is sometimes the key that unlocks stories of vital public interest.
That critical alliance breaks down, however, if the agencies of government, including courts, can compel a reporter to violate the promise of confidentiality. Reporters go to jail, newspapers pay fines, sources clam up. The only thing that emerges stronger is government’s ability to keep uncomfortable secrets from the public.
Laws in 31 states and the District of Columbia protect a reporter’s right to withhold information about anonymous sources. Washington and Idaho have no such statute, although court precedents have established a tradition of protection. The certainty provided by statute is lacking, but that will change in Washington if legislation proposed by Attorney General Rob McKenna becomes law next year.
McKenna, who has also spoken out in support of a federal shield law for reporters, announced last week that he will submit an executive-request bill to the Legislature for the 2006 session that convenes in January. Among his vocal backers is King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng, who put it this way: “We rely on reporters as watchdogs for government and business, and we must support their efforts to get to the truth.”
That from a veteran prosecutor who knows how imposing the legal and financial resources of government can be if brought to bear against a public employee, a journalist or a newspaper — especially a small newspaper with more civic courage than financial means to back it up in a costly court showdown.
To preserve conscientious whistleblowers’ ability to hold government accountable, Washington lawmakers should give McKenna’s proposal their earnest attention, strengthening it if necessary, and join the fraternity of states with shield laws. Idaho should follow suit.