The Novak Exception--III: The press corps discovers the First Amendment

Opinion Journal ^ | 8/13/04 | editorial

[pookie18]

Isn't it amazing what a raft of federal subpoenas will do to concentrate the media mind? Back when columnist Robert Novak looked to be the main target of special federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, our professional press ethicists were tut-tutting about how they'd never "hide" behind journalistic privilege to abet a "crime." But now that a federal judge has held Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in contempt for refusing to tell a grand jury the sources for his own Valerie Plame story, suddenly the eyebrows furrow and talk turns to the threat to the First Amendment.

That threat is real. Right now the only thing keeping Mr. Cooper out of jail is that federal district court judge Thomas F. Hogan has suspended the sanctions against both Mr. Cooper and Time magazine pending their appeal. But the judge has taken their argument head on and rejected it, writing that "neither the First Amendment nor the common law protect reporters from their obligations shared by all citizens to testify before the grand jury when called to do so." The danger is that if this lands in the Supreme Court, it will be forced to come down definitively on Judge Hogan's side.

[coconutt2000]

It was her and her husband... They set the whole thing up to make the President look bad.

If he knew why they were doing it, then he might also be complicit in something far more nefarious than just reporting a planted story. He may be involved in something that might be considered treason.

I bet that's what they told him, and so he's being quiet.

[Born Conservative]

The liberal media are like a bunch of school children; they only follow the rules when it benefits them.

[Diogenesis]

You are right. Wilson = Novak = traitors.

So why is Palme-Wilson STILL in power at the CIA?
Same reason as Berger-Burglar still having CODE-level clearance.
There is still more damage left for them to do to America.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"neither the First Amendment nor the common law protect reporters from their obligations shared by all citizens to testify before the grand jury when called to do so"

. . . because we-the-people all have the rights mentioned in the First Amendment. FR posters are exercising "the freedom . . . of the press" all the time. How can the whole people have the right to stonewall legitimate subpoenas?

The fallacy lies in the conceit of journalists - people who publish a particular genre of nonfiction, noted for negativity, unreliability, and superficiality - that they alone are "the press." They have bombarded us with that propaganda for so long that even if you recognize that it is propaganda you will find yourself inadvertently validating that usage.

[Tom D.]

And like school children, they are usually too stupid to realize that what looks like a benefit today may actually be suicide tomorrow.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"neither the First Amendment nor the common law protect reporters from their obligations shared by all citizens to testify before the grand jury when called to do so"

. . . because we-the-people all have the rights mentioned in the First Amendment. FR posters are exercising "the freedom . . . of the press" all the time. How can the whole people have the right to stonewall legitimate subpoenas?

The fallacy lies in the conceit of journalists - people who publish a particular genre of nonfiction, noted for negativity, unreliability, and superficiality - that they alone are "the press." They have bombarded us with that propaganda for so long that even if you recognize that it is propaganda you will find yourself inadvertently validating that usage.

The danger hope is that if this lands in the Supreme Court, it will be forced to come down definitively on Judge Hogan's side.

[Auslander]

Amen to that! I hope it goes to the SCOTUS.

[OESY]

CONCLUSION:



Worst of all, it's unnecessary. The more we've learned over the past year, the more it's clear that all the talk about a "crime" in the Plame leak was simply the standard Beltway practice of trying to criminalize political differences. All along Mr. Novak has maintained that he only named Valerie Plame to explain how the CIA could have assigned an Administration critic such as her husband, Joe Wilson, the sensitive task of investigating allegations about Iraq's interest in purchasing uranium from Niger.

For his part, Mr. Wilson has categorically and noisily declared his wife had nothing to do with his assignment. As he put it to Time magazine, "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." A recently released, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report cites evidence showing otherwise, however. And Senator Kit Bond notes that when committee investigators asked Ms. Plame whether she'd recommended her husband, she had a sudden memory loss. "I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss ..."

To put it another way, even Ms. Plame doesn't back up her husband's story, and the committee's report that she was involved goes a long way toward confirming that there was never a crime here: Her name was disclosed to expose the politics behind an assignment, not to out an undercover operative and endanger national security. If the political coloring of this case were different, the same press ethicists attacking Mr. Novak would doubtless be hailing him as a courageous "whistleblower."

...

[NYCVirago]

It is funny how those self-appointed defenders of the First Amendment never got around to defending Novak's rights.