Does it violate ethics to reveal a voluntary source?

This post is, in part, a response to Will Pitt's defense of Novak, but the thread is too long for manageable discussion. In addition, I'm raising a larger point.

I agree fully with the need for journalists to protect their sources. In this case, however, the information came in the form of an unsolicited telephone call. This is not, as far as we know, the result of Novak or the others carefully cultivating a confidential relationship.

So my question is, does the nature of this particular voluntary leak, particularly since it may be a criminal offense, negate the obligation of a journalist to protect this particular source?

Rove did it and some of the other six journalists are already talking:

http://atrios.blogspot.com

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/0,12271,759893,00.html

Fiends are telling friends. Secondhand reports are leaking. Once the atmosphere is full of innuendo, someone will talk. Count on it.

they don't have to directly reveal their sources but since it's out there and circulating it will come out. Also Wilson said he would give the names of every journalist who contacted him with information.

And don't forget journalists can still be forced to testify in court.

It will all come out and it's going all the way to the top. Come on. Tell me you don't know that Bush knows exactly who was involved in this.

Sometimes the only way anybody finds out about anything is when a source voluntarily gives some information to a reporter.

There are leaks, nad there are leaks. If a whistleblower is calling a journalist to report something that's illegal, then the source should be protected. However, as joe Conason observed, Novak should have considered the motive of the caller. If it was it to smear and intimidate Wilson and other critics, it's a completely different matter. The journalist in this case is being used to advance a malicious agenda. It's not a clear cut thing, which is why I thought discussion of the issues wuld be helpful.

because she or he believes something is wrongful and wants it corrected. She or he legitimately remains anonymous because of power differentials (the corp. would retaliate if she or he is identified). That is NOT the case of the "senior admin officials" who chose to share information that was NOT about org. wrongdoing. They are not whistle-blowers; they are wrongdoers who were protecting no one by revealing Plume's identity, and in fact were jeopardizing her, her contacts, and national security, and sending a message to her husband and all other dissenters that they would face severe retaliation if they speak out. The journalist has an obligation to protect someone acting to stop wrongdoing; she or he has no such obligation to protect wrongdoers. Novak put himself in a bad position because there was no interest served in revealing her identity; he had no reason at all to reveal it. If he were concerned about wrongdoing, he could have talked to his bosses about doing an investigative story or turning over the info to a prosecutor.

It's important that we not let the Repugs spin this to give it any respectability whatsoever.

being committed and therefore needs to tell everything he knows about the incedent. It is not like it was a confidential witness or even a confidential confession to a reporter, it was an act of treasonous sabotage to out a covert CIA operative. No journalism here, just a crime.

Where is Will Pitts justification?

Novak should not have published her name. But he did. So the question is, what should he do now? If he names names, will he ever get any off the record or "senior administration official" information again? What is the consequence of him and others not receiving that information?

.

You are my mate. I have helped you in the past.. you have helped me... we scratch each others backs from time to time. Now I want some impt information that I know you would not just willy nilly give to just anyone, and in fact you would prefer not to give to me. But you trust me, you think it is ethical to disclose, and we have history... and I promise not to tell who gave it me.

That is proabably the normal relationship between source and journalist. Many senior police officers would have a few journalists that he works with like this. The relationship is two way.

In this case however - from what we understand Rove or his minion - rang six journalists and said something like. "this Wilson cat who is giving us grief, I have a scoop for you but you have to keep who gave it to you under your hat, he is a loser and he only got the job becoz his wife works for the CIA...."

a story.

If you're being used as a tool in a dark game, do you have an obligation to protect the person who called you and tried to use you?

However, the fact that they knew Novak would do their bidding, is probably the same reason Novak won't blow in his source.

Honor among thieves.

...would never want to see a reporter's sources compromised, especially when we are suffering under a very secretive administration.

Novak was wrong to print the story, but because he did, he has revealed his true colors; he's a shill for shrub and co. Moreover, think about this, if even Novak had sat on this story, the public (especially shrub supporters) would never see how vindictive and vengeful these bastards are.

All and all, Ms. Plame notwithstanding, this is a very good thing.

sitting on it. He could have informed authorities. And fortunately, the leakers were so stupid as to tell 6 people rather than just one; surely one of those people would have talked once the CIA raised issues about it.

but he is lying, and every time he talks about it he is digging a deeper hole. He committed his words to paper, and they can be checked. I'm not sure the story would have the impact if it hadn't been printed. The repugs could then say, look the system works and it would be dropped.

civil service with protections for career appointees. Otherwise I am afraid the CIA might not have pushed for justice here. Not that the protection system is perfect but it is a clear case of why we cannot have political appointees dominating these organizations.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/cf.00.html
(9/29 Crossfire transcript)

I have been beleaguered by television networks around the world, but I am reserving my say for CROSSFIRE.

Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.

As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington, I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis, who is -- he is a former Clinton administration official. They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.

According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?

If you BELIEVE Novak's story (and that the other five reporters are either crazy, lying, or part of an incredible coincidence), then you're asking a legitimate question. Novak seems to be insisting that since the woman was not an operative, it's "no harm, no foul." However, he seems to have forgotten that in the story he ran in July, he DESCRIBED her as an operative. So much for his "journalistic integrity."


rocknation

There is an important distinction here that I too have been thinking about.

And my answer to your question is yes the obligation to protect the source is negated in these circumstances (I changed no to yes on re-reading the phrasing of the original question... oops time for bed). And this is especially so if the source is someone who should have known much better like the PM's Press Sec. Alastair Campbell or in this case the President's Puppetteer Karl Rove.

As a political journalist in NZ I would not hesitate to release the source in such circumstances. There would be consequences but journalistic ethics are always a question of balance, not black and white distinctions.

In this particular case the risk is not that the journalist will get into trouble with his peers, nor that they would be breaking their ethics, nor even that they would deter future sources from coming forward (leastways not ethical ones). The principle risk to these journalists is that they will cut off their supply to "information of this type".

Which is where it gets interesting. Information of this type is what? Sleazy backhanded under the radar scoop material. And the journalists will have been picked by the briefer because they accept this kind of sludge - and occasionally use it. Moreover they will have been picked because they know who butters their bread...

Admittedly this is just my opinion, and perhaps journalistic ethics are different downunder than they are over there. But I reckon that if these journalists are too cowardly to come forward then their editors should make them an offer they find hard to refuse....

. . with a request for confidentiality (that was granted or understood by the receiver).

If no request for secrecy was made as a condition for giving the information, then, like 99% of all journalists' questions the giver should understand that they would not necessarily remain anonymous.

But then you re-frame the question in a criminal context. I'm no lawyer so this is what I think "should be" - not what the law states.

I don't think jounalists should be exempt from rules regarding ordinary witnesses in trials. If they know of a serious crime they should be required to report it or face the consequences - just like the rest of us.

The question is whether it would be right in these circumstances to break your word.

We already grant priests that type of cover. As an atheist I find that somewhat discriminatory and of dubious benefit to society. I certainly see no reason, no benefit to society, of providing that protection to journalists.

You might say we get to know more when we read the paper or watch the news - by protecting journalists from divulging their sources. I'd say society has a far greater interest in being protected from crime - than from getting more information, earlier, from the news.

If someone wants to spill their beans to a reporter and protect their identity they can still do that by doing a "deepthroat" type of interview.

Unfortunately, our society has criminalized things that it has no right or business criminalizing, like drug use, prostitution, etc. This makes it difficult for rational people to want to give the cops and prosecutors more tools to fight crime. But we do need to fight crime as a society. Maybe some day we'll learn to do so more wisely.

I certainly see no reason, no benefit to society, of providing that protection to journalists.

You might say we get to know more when we read the paper or watch the news - by protecting journalists from divulging their sources. I'd say society has a far greater interest in being protected from crime - than from getting more information, earlier, from the news.

WHOOA THERE....

Journalists right to protect sources is very important. They should be entitled to do so - and in a world with corrupt cops the example you give is way off the mark.... the protection is vital for the interests of justice.

The question is not should the journalists be compelled to disclose their sources. And in some circumstances they can be so compelled... but rather should they choose to do so voluntarily once they have properly consulted their consciences...

"Journalists right to protect sources is very important. They should be entitled to do so - and in a world with corrupt cops the example you give is way off the mark.... the protection is vital for the interests of justice."

Please explain.

(Joe?)

On edit: Remember that the news is big business. What you are defending is their right to make more money from us by selling us a scarce commodity that they hope to get exclusively instead of sharing with their competitors - as much as anything else.

... from the mafia. He provides photos and tape evidence. You check the story out and you run it. How is it in the interests of justice for your source to be revealed. He would probably end up dead...

Or....

Lets say a scientist working for a car company tells you that a new model of car is dangerous and the car company knows it but has chosen to do nothing. But he still wants to keep his job... how does compelling the revealing of the source serve justice.

In this case the WH sources outed a CIA operative to Novak - that was a federal crime (unless Novak has a security clearance and a need to know).

Then Novak himself committed the same crime by divulging her identity to the public.

I agree that the journalist should not be compelled to divulge their source in your examples - because the sources were not complicit in the crime. That would be similar to whistleblower protection which is of course, for the benefit of society.

Please help, any lawyers out there, but isn't the patient/doctor confidentiality right limited in the case of psychologists, if a patient has revealed his or her imminent plans to harm someone? Aren't psychologists legally obliged to notify authorities in order to protect the target? For example, if I go to a psychologist and say I plan to shoot my brother-in-law because he makes me so angry, and the psychologist has reason to believe that I may actually do it, I think the psychologist by law cannot claim confidentiality as a defense if I actually shoot my brother-in-law.

Journalistic ethics are by their nature fluid. There are no rules... only guidelines. And there is no enforcement authority. A Dr can get in trouble for releasing a patients information... a journalist can get an angry phone call.

Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Is making the good point that Newsday's Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps are probably not among the six. In fact that they are probably part of a newly formed spin defence campaign... fascinating discussion well worth reading.

But is Novak among the six? He claims not...