Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forbes Reporter Refuses To Testify Against Crackers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the protecting-sources-no-matter-what dept.

The first paragraph of the Media Notes column in today's Washington Post says, "Reporter Adam Penenburg is quitting Forbes magazine to protect Slut Puppy and Master Pimp." This pair is accused of having defaced the New York Times Web site. Penenburg wrote about them, and now Federal prosecutors want him to testify against them or at least affirm the truth of what he wrote, which Penenburg feels could open him up to further questions. It's a murky situation. What would you do if you were in it? What do you think Slashdot should do if faced with that kind of choice?

4 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. What would slashdot do? by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · · Score: 5

    (read before moderating) I think Slashdot would testify. Why? Because I think they've already caved to Microsoft.

    That's a big accusation, where did I get it from? Well, if you'll recall we never heard anything more about the Slashdot vs MS thing. Surely MS would have responded by now. But even more damning is this: About a week ago I was reading at -1. There's some troll at that level who keeps cut 'n' pasting various texts (porn stories, howto's, etc). In one story I found he had posted an entire MSDN "Q article". When I refreshed the page, that post was GONE.

    So Slashdot is removing (MS only?) copyrighted materials. Fine, that's their right, after all reproduction of copyrighted material is against the law. My point is not that they shouldn't have done it (although I don't like it). My point is that Slashdot HAS bowed to "the man" before and would therefore probably do it again.

    And, either way, I think we'd ALL appreciate an update on the MS story....
    --

    --
    Linux MAPI Server!
    http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
    (Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
  2. Well, You See... by Seumas · · Score: 5
    There's this little thing called 'protecting your source'. It's a long-standing journalistic tradition and, I believe, respected right that reporters are not required to snitch on their sources, for very obvious reasons. While exceptions are occasionally made, I'm sure, this is not one of those times where one should -- this is a web page defacement, not a murder or a rape or a kidnapping.

    Congratulations to the reported for having the integrity to protect his source. The media may be a festering pile of scabs, but there are a few respectable and honorable persons left in the business.

    I'd be curious to see Slashdot interview him.
    ---
    seumas.com

  3. Most Newspaper Policy Is... by InitZero · · Score: 5

    I've worked at a number of major market newspapers and the policy has been the same at all of them.

    We won't do anything without a subpoena. We will fight all subpoenas even if the request is harmless just to be consistent.

    Once in court, we will only testify to things we put in print. We will not, under any circumstances, turn over reporter's notes or unpublished photographs. Folks I know have gone to jail for contempt.

    Journalists protecting sources have repeatedly been protected by the court system and that is how it should be. If subjects knew that everything they said could be turned over to the police, no one would talk to reporters. Thus, the courts have found that in order to have a free press, it is necessary for journalists to have the same sort of confidentiality protection that doctors and priests have.

    At a time when journalists are taking hits for their ethics, I'm glad to see Penenburg putting his job on the line for the Right Thing.

    InitZero

  4. Shield Laws by Jim+Tyre · · Score: 5
    Most states have so-called Shield Laws, which provide (limited) protection against revealing sources and/or unpublished information (things said to the reporter but not published in the article. For example, California's Shield law says:

    (b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. As used in this subdivision, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.

    The first thing to do, then, is to check the appropriate state Shield Laws to see what protection they may apply. (As an aside, I am aware of no cases applying the protections of a shield law to an Internet reporter, but none denying it either, the issue has not yet arisen in the courts.) Even if the law does not provide protection, is is a fairly long and well-established tradition among journalists to protect their sources. Part of this is a moral obligation, part is the practical consideration that if a reporter burns one source, word will get out, and that reporter will find it increasingly difficult to work with other sources who want confidentiality.

    If the law does not provide protection, it is a tough choice for the reporter or publisher to make; but the reality is that the percentage of incidents when a reporter or publisher actually is jailed or otherwise punished is quite small, though more than -0-.