Ruling to Make Reporters Act Like Drug Dealers?

netbuzz writes "A 2-1 New York appeals court ruling yesterday will require two reporters to cough up their telephone records over a property-seizure case unless it gets reversed on appeal. As the dissenting judge noted, this kind of erosion of press protections will have reporters 'contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers do to reach theirs -- by use of clandestine cell phones and meeting in darkened doorways.' It's long past time for a federal shield law."

Comments

Source article

[MrNougat]

How about the source article instead of a blog about it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02pho nes.html
http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.nytimes.com

Re:Source article

[Morinaga]

Better yet, instead of an article linked to an opinion piece blog or an article linked to the actual press that's part of the news, how about we link to a third party? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060801/ap_on_re_us/ny _times_phone_records

The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

Prosecutors claimed the reporters' phone calls to the charities seeking comment had tipped the organizations off about the government investigation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald asked the Times for information about the source of the reports in 2002, then threatened to subpoena phone company billing records in 2004.

The newspaper sued to block any such effort, saying prosecutors might use the records to fish for information about the Times' sources for a long list of stories.

There is of course a line in the sand with the press in which the 1st amendment reaches the yelling fire in a theatre threshold. I think the question here is this equivalent to the NY Times tipping off the Germans prior to Normandy? Or is this something they should be able to do, in this case tipping off possible sources of terrorist funding right after 9-11 no less. The government is rightly seeking to find the sources of the original leaks to the reporters rather than looking to prosecute the reporters themselves. The reporters, in my view were irresposible but because freedom of the press is a sacred cow (rightfully so in most cases) they are pretty untouchable. However, the source of the leak should rightfully be given up when it comes to a matter of national security. Once that source is discovered they should be prosecuted.

Curiously...

[Otter]

As always when reading this stuff, my first thought was that the media shouldn't have gotten so obsessed with damaging the Bush administration over the Plame "scandal" nonsense that they demanded that punishing leakers take priority over all else.

Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.

Re:Curiously...

[timster]

Oddly enough, while your post is sort of the conventional wisdom on the Plame leak controversy, you actually have it backwards.

Judith Miller -- the journalist involved in both these issues -- wasn't involved in any sort of attempt to damage the Bush administration with the Plame scandal. In fact, Bush insiders intentionally leaked the story to Miller and others as part of the Iraq WMD propaganda. Judith Miller's stories had swallowed the administration's line on WMD so leaking to her was a natural choice (along with other conservative reporters like Bob Novak).

Thus, the leak issue came up not because the media was obsessed with damaging the Bush administration, but because the government's prosecutor was determined to get to the bottom of the case (for whatever reason). Since it was pro-Bush journalists who had received the Plame leak, it was pro-Bush journalists who were being asked to reveal sources.

The more recent instances of anti-leak sentiment are more traditional cases of the "liberal media" publishing information that the Bush administration wanted to keep secret. This is the exact opposite of the Plame scandal, where the information was leaked on purpose.

Misleading story

[Kohath]

This story is very misleading.

The FBI was going to raid some places they thought were linked to terrorist financing. The reporters found out. The reporters called the organizations for comment, in advance of the raids.

Hi, this is Judith Miller of the New York Times. Your organization is going to be raided by the Feds tomorrow to look for evidence in connection with a terrorist financing investigation. Do you have any comment on that?

I think the judges' ruling is correct. Reporters can't be allowed the privilege of anonymous sources when they take these sorts of actions.