Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When to Give Up a Source
Time ^ | 7/3/05 | BILL SAPORITO

Posted on 07/03/2005 7:28:13 AM PDT by 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)

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; cooper; miller; plame; rove; time
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.
1 posted on 07/03/2005 7:28:15 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
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.

2 posted on 07/03/2005 7:33:18 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

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


3 posted on 07/03/2005 7:38:56 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

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


4 posted on 07/03/2005 7:40:28 AM PDT by Amanda75 (Amanda75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
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".

5 posted on 07/03/2005 7:45:35 AM PDT by Mark was here (My tag line was about to be censored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amanda75
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.
6 posted on 07/03/2005 8:01:35 AM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
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????


7 posted on 07/03/2005 8:05:20 AM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
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.

8 posted on 07/03/2005 8:08:59 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer

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

NO.


9 posted on 07/03/2005 8:13:45 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
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!

10 posted on 07/03/2005 8:14:49 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

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...


11 posted on 07/03/2005 8:17:52 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

NO.

Whew!

I'll bet you were relieved!

12 posted on 07/03/2005 8:21:20 AM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tet68
You could SUE them for not having ground fault outlets...

Yes, but the whole thing was my fault.

13 posted on 07/03/2005 8:52:57 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
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)...

14 posted on 07/03/2005 9:37:56 AM PDT by The Electrician ("Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middie
"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?

15 posted on 07/03/2005 11:16:04 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson