When to Give Up a Source

Time ^ | 7/3/05 | BILL SAPORITO

[NathanBookman]

For journalists, confidential sources can be as essential as ink.

That's why so many were surprised last week when Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of TIME Inc., said he would reveal some confidential information about a big story. In a case involving TIME Magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, Pearlstine agreed to comply with a federal subpoena and surrender Cooper's notes and files relating to a story he had written that is part of an investigation into the disclosure of a CIA operative's identity. (snip) After TIME Inc. agreed to turn over the requested materials to Fitzgerald's office, speculation quickly surfaced over whose names would be identified. Much of that focused on Karl Rove, senior adviser to President George W. Bush. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Cooper called Rove during the week before Novak's story appeared but declined to say what they discussed. Luskin said Rove "has never knowingly disclosed classified information." The lawyer said he has received repeated assurances from Fitzgerald's office that Rove is not a target in the case. (snip)

[NathanBookman]

The leak is one thing, but the whole confidentiality of sources it the big issue here. Many leakers will have to wonder if they can remain anonymous.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Many leakers will have to wonder if they can remain anonymous.

I was leaking just the other day, and looked up to see a camera.

[NathanBookman]

Were you standing in the video equipment section of Best Buy at the time?

[Amanda75]

Well, I sent this ass a note and said the easy column would have to to admit that the time to give us a source is when it is a republican, or a rep., WH.........

We know damn good and well that if the Clintons or any demo would have been in the WH, this wouldn't happen

[Mark was here]

If we are all equal under the law then we can all claim the need to protect our source for our own particular reason.

Sounds to me like the media elites want to be "more equal".

[middie]

The looming paradox is that the, so-called, liberal press went all the way to the Supreme Court and endures the threat of contempt for the NYT, corporate publisher, as well as jail for the reporter, Judith Miller, to prevent the disclosure of Karl Rove as the source. For sure the easier path would have been for both Time and the NYT gleefully to embarrass the primary advisor to the President as the person who, in violation of federal law, disclosed the name of a CIA operative in a foreign country.

[TheGeezer]

I was leaking just the other day, and looked up to see a camera.

BUT WERE YOU WEARING A NAME TAG??? DID YOU REMAIN ANONYMOUS??? DID AN UN-NAMED SOURCE LATER REVEAL YOU TO BE A LEAKER????

[muir_redwoods]

The time to give up a source is when you realize that they fed you a load of Bravo Sierra for political reasons and the whole mess is about to take you down.

Actually that's about 2 months too late.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

BUT WERE YOU WEARING A NAME TAG??? DID YOU REMAIN ANONYMOUS??? DID AN UN-NAMED SOURCE LATER REVEAL YOU TO BE A LEAKER????

NO.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Were you standing in the video equipment section of Best Buy at the time?

Why yes. And I shorted out half of their digital camera stock!

[tet68]

Why yes. And I shorted out half of their digital camera stock!

I'd ask for my money back, or at least an exchange.
You could SUE them for not having ground fault outlets...

[TheGeezer]

NO.

Whew!

I'll bet you were relieved!

[Mr Ramsbotham]

You could SUE them for not having ground fault outlets...

Yes, but the whole thing was my fault.

[The Electrician]

After TIME Inc. agreed to turn over the requested materials to Fitzgerald's office, speculation quickly surfaced over whose names would be identified.

Of course, since the author is writing for Time Magazine, wouldn't you be tempted to think that he might try to uncover what Time Magazine actually turned over to Fitzgerald's office, instead of merely reporting on unsubstantiated speculation? The guy would have a major scoop. The press thinks that publishing others' secrets is just great, but they show such a strong reluctance to disclosing their own secrets. Wonder why (well, no, actually I don't)...

[norwaypinesavage]

"The looming paradox is that the, so-called, liberal press went all the way to the Supreme Court... to prevent the disclosure of Karl Rove as the source."

You haven't read the article, have you?