Pressing the case

By JIM TARICANI | March 14, 2007

The troubled status quo
The source-confidentiality case involving two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, demonstrates the shortcomings of the present situation. The duo faced up to 18 months in prison for refusing to disclose the source that provided them with grand jury testimony in the so-called BALCO baseball steroid scandal involving Barry Bonds.

In the time before Williams and Fainaru-Wada were slapped with a subpoena, no less a figure than President George W. Bush recognized the value of their investigative reporting, presenting the pair with an award and telling them, “You gentlemen have performed a valuable public service.” Blowing the whistle on steroids is apparently one thing, and raising questions about the White House’s justification for the war in Iraq, as Joseph Wilson famously did with an op-ed in the New York Times, setting into motion what would become Libbygate, quite another.

As it happened, prosecutors withdrew their subpoenas against Williams and Fainaru-Wada after a defense lawyer acknowledged giving the reporters access to the grand jury transcripts. In my own case, the leaked FBI videotape depicting a City of Providence official taking a bribe offered perhaps the most unvarnished example of corruption in Buddy Cianci’s City Hall.

If we are to have a free press that is able to watch over our government, it makes sense to offer protection to citizens who feel the need to talk with reporters on a confidential basis about government wrongdoing. And it follows that it makes sense to provide legal protection to the reporters who promise those citizens confidentiality.

As the noted University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone points out, “The goal of most legal privileges is to promote open communication in circumstances in which society wants to encourage such communication.” Stone, who spoke at a conference I recently attended in Washington, DC, is concerned that citizens who want to right wrongs will not come forward without a federal shield law.

When confidentiality is sought, it is then up to the journalist, along with his or her news organization to weigh the public value of that information against the need for the government, or private business, to keep it from the public. Shield law critics question whether the press should be allowed to make such important decisions. Many journalists, including myself, consider such decisions vital to the presence of a free press in this country. There are many legal privileges that promote such communication, including the attorney-client privilege, the doctor-patient privilege, the psychotherapist privilege, and the priest-penitent privilege.

That’s why it’s the height of hypocrisy when government seeks to prosecute journalists for publishing or broadcasting information obtained from a confidential government source. The Libby case involving Valerie Plame is a prime example.

< prev 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next >

Getting Justice back on track
There’s been more than a little political posturing over the latest Bush-administration scandal.
The Gray Lady in shadow
Fearful that his presidency could be swept into the same historical dustbin as Richard Nixon’s, an unrepentant President George W. Bush seems intent on prosecuting the sources who leaked to the New York Times the details of his administration’s warrantless domestic spying.
The GOP lurches rightward
Did the Republican presidential candidates see something in the 2006 midterm elections that everyone else missed?
Rove’s footprints
“Turd Blossom.” That’s what President Bush affectionately calls Karl Rove, his top political aide. It’s an apt nickname, especially these days.
Ring of fire
An ugly squabble between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the nation’s biggest phone companies has, in one nasty blow, recast the image of all the entities involved.
The song remains the same
At one point early on in last weekend’s anti-war rally in Washington, DC, a speaker instructed the crowd, which was facing en masse toward the Capitol Building, to turn around and look in the other direction — toward the White House, the State Department, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon — and then to turn back around. Slideshow: Images from the January 27th march on Washington, DC. Photos by Matthew Craig
Are we freer than we were 40 years ago?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Soft on Crime?
Republican gubernatorial candidate Kerry Healey has made much of her Democratic rival Deval Patrick’s efforts to free a Worcester-area rapist from prison, but it turns out that under her administration, few rapists have been jailed to begin with.
A spate of phony ‘terror’ plots
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, however, a “terrorism” prosecution is anything but.
Highway robbery
Not long ago, the path by which the recent Justice Department scandal traveled from tidbit to tsunami would have been seen as an exotic trip through an unknown land.
He had his reasons
So why did Alberto Gonzales resign?
Less