There’s no consensus among newspaper readers over what reporters should do when forced to choose between jail time and revealing an anonymous source, and equally mixed reaction to a federal protection for journalists in such a position.
The one thing they did agree on: If you know about important information that’s going to make a difference in our lives, find some way to tell us.
Court orders and legal appeals in the Valerie Plame leak investigation provided a pair of contrasting examples used in an online survey of newspaper readers by the Associated Press Managing Editors. Participating newspapers nationwide asked readers to describe their attitudes toward protecting anonymous sources, and to consider whether federal law ought to shield people who gather and report the news.
In the Plame investigation, Time Inc., exhausted legal appeals but ultimately turned over magazine reporter Matt Cooper’s notes. Cooper later testified about his contact with White House adviser Karl Rove, after his lawyer secured a waiver of confidentiality. New York Times reporter Judith Miller, however, chose jail time over revealing her source.
Among readers responding to the survey, just over half said Miller did the right thing. But nearly half also said Time Inc., responded appropriately; in fact, 12 percent of respondents said both Miller and Time were right. In each case, about a third of respondents said they disagreed with the media’s stance.
“On one level, Judith Miller was right to refuse to testify,” said Ann Mullin of Apex, N.C. “Feeling that she should protect her source, Judith Miller accepted the consequences of her civil disobedience and went to jail. On another level, Judith Miller was wrong. Even doctors and lawyers do not have absolute protection of confidentiality.”
“Last time I checked reporters are not a special class of citizen afforded different rights and privileges than the rest of us,” said Keith Pennock of Seattle. “Reporters are big on the ‘public’s right to know’ when the government and companies are under the microscope. What about when the reporters themselves are being examined? The courts form a legitimate mode of inquiry by the people.”
Many readers struggled to reconcile a need for public information that sometimes requires a whistleblower, and hesitation toward creating a set of special classes and privileges. About 44 percent of responses supported a federal law protecting reporters from having to testify about their sources, and 41 percent were opposed.
Under the current system, readers pointed out, journalists and their sources simply have to be aware of where a story might take them. “At the end of the day, the law is the law,” said Jason Brown of Merrimack, N.H. “An anonymous source should know in the back of their mind that there is always going to be a possible chance that his or her identity may become or need to become known.”
Some found value in both responses. This might not provide much guidance for journalists weighing the possibility of jail time, but at least suggests that readers are open when the media follows up a difficult decision with a clear explanation.
“When I first heard Time Inc.’s explanation for complying with the court order I felt that it made sense,” said Mike Dempster of Durham, N.C. “They suggested that without complying they would be placing themselves above the law. But then I heard the NY Times response. That made even more sense to me. The journalist who stands behind their promise to protect the anonymity of a source, and goes to jail to follow through with that protection, is not placing themselves above the law. They are participating fully, by accepting the punishment and serving the time sentenced by the court. And they are doing something even more important … maintaining the viability of our fourth estate.”
The APME survey also asked readers to consider a third example: the current situation at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, where the editor says the newspaper has not published two stories “of profound importance” because they’re based on leaked documents. “Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail,” Editor Doug Clifton told Editor & Publisher.
Nationally, only 5 percent of readers said the paper should just hold the stories. More than a third said the Plain Dealer ought to forge ahead and run them anyway. “If these are indeed of ‘profound’ importance, they should be published — with the paper and its legal staff having done the appropriate ground work in advance and made the tough decisions about what their stand will be,” said Pat Schultz of Nora Springs, Iowa. “If they feel they are on 100 percent solid ground in terms of truth and ethics, then they need to go ahead and do their job!”
Nearly half of readers urged a compromise, describing exactly what the Plain Dealer is doing: Use the documents as a roadmap and pursue every available avenue of corroboration. “The leak may open the paper’s eyes, but somewhere there has to be a verification of that information — either from an individual or within areas of public record,” said Nan McCann of Yakima, Wash.
If that fails, journalists have to “weigh for themselves if the public interest is damaged more than the interest of the two leakers if the story is withheld,” said Mark Edwards of Chapel Hill, N.C. And if the public interest wins out?
“Reporters can be heroes and go to jail,” said Richard Newton of Marengo, Ind. “Our military makes sacrifices for our country every day. Reporters can too.”
One survey question asked readers to imagine themselves as a source for a story, and to describe how far they’d expect a reporter to go to protect their anonymity. Some said they couldn’t let someone go to jail on their behalf; they’d feel too guilty. For plenty of others, it was a simple matter of standing by your word: If you promise me you’ll protect my identity, I’ll expect nothing less. “Reporters who do not have the stomach for this should be made to cover the Lifestyle stories,” said Linda Watson of Raleigh, N.C.
Many responses put some of the moral burden on the anonymous sources themselves. In situations like the Plain Dealer‘s, Edward Hammerbeck of Louisville, Ky., said the media has only one responsibility, and that’s to the truth. “If the leakers took the trouble to make the documents available, then they need to accept whatever consequences follow.”
“I would probably release the reporter from the pledge,” said K.M. Dawson of Englewood, Ohio. “After all, the idea of civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences, and the source who is committing the disobedience should be taking the risk, not the reporter. The only thing I am sure of is that anonymity should not be requested, promised, or abandoned lightly.”
About This Series
This Readers Speak survey was sponsored by the Associated Press Managing Editor’s National Credibility Roundtables Project through its Reader Interactive initiative. A total of 25 news organizations helped gather 1,114 responses from 36 states and the District of Columbia.
The results are not scientific; those who responded are likely to be among the more wired and interactive readers that newspapers have. They were polled because they had given their e-mail address to their local newspaper, and comments were taken only online.
The National Credibility Roundtables Project is funded through a grant from the Ford Foundation, and is intended to help the media address the credibility crisis that exists with the public. The Reader Interactive initiative, as part of that project, has assisted newsrooms around the country in setting up reader e-mail networks so that editors can be in better touch with readers. On occasion, the newsrooms involved in that initiative work together on a national Readers Speak survey such as this one.
