|
|
|
| Sunday, 10 July 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
US Supreme Court strikes major blow at press freedom by Lucien Rajakarunanayake
The United States Supreme Court declining to hear the cases of two reporters of the New York Times and the Time magazine, facing up to 18 months in jail for refusing to testify about conversations with their confidential sources, strikes a major blow at Press Freedom and the freedom of journalists not only in the United States but in other parts of the world too. The order by the Supreme Court is considered the gravest confrontation between the press and the US government in a generation, and has come at a time when the US news media are under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias. The Supreme Court decision from the country of the First Amendment upheld as the beacon for press and journalistic freedom, and a model for other societies to follow, will only help defeat the activities of those battling for media freedom in countries where it is being constantly under threat and also stifled. The case arose after a Washington columnist Robert Novak, in a syndicated column published two years ago, disclosed the name of the wife of a senior US diplomat as being a CIA agent. The two journalists affected, Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine had no direct link to the exposure by Robert Novak. However, they were found guilty by a Federal District Court in Washington of refusal to disclosures about their own sources regarding the exposure of the alleged CIA operative to a Grand Jury.
The order of the District Court was upheld by a Court Appeal, after which it was taken to the Supreme Court, which on June 28, 2005 declined to hear the case, despite it being supported by the Attorneys General of 34 States in the US. The case now returns to Federal District Court in Washington, where Judge Thomas F. Hogan will hear arguments on Wednesday about when and where the reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, will begin to serve their time. Ms. Miller has said she will go to jail rather than testify. "Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won't be identified," she said in a statement following the Supreme Court decision. "Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy." It is now reported that Time Inc. has agreed to hand over the information sought to the Grand Jury, but this is not a decision taken by their journalist Matthew Cooper, who too has expressed willingness to serve time in jail if ordered to do so. Witch-hunt The case against these two journalists most intriguing because the original writer Robert Novak who disclosed the name of the diplomat's wife Valarie Plame as a CIA agent has not been asked by the Grand Jury to reveal the source of his own story. It appears that he had been questioned and would have cooperated with the prosecutors and revealed his sources. If so, what was the need to seek any more sources from Judith Miller of The New York Times who did not write any story about the matter, but made investigations about the disclosure of Valerie Plame's connections with the CIA., and Matthew Cooper who did write about Valerie Plame, but focused on the motivations that may have lain behind her unmasking. The entire episode is well regarded as part of a witch-hunt by the Bush Administration against the husband of Valarie Palme, a senior diplomat who reported that President George W Bush's allegation that Nigeria had supplied enriched uranium to Iraq was not correct, causing embarrassment to the President and his hard line colleagues in the Pentagon. It is ironic that with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case, perhaps the only people who will serve time as a result of the inquiry are those who had no part in the conversations that prompted it. The Special Prosecutor handling the case has said he would seek to have the reporters jailed immediately. Experts in law and journalism have differed about the obligations of reporters to comply with final court orders in cases involving confidential sources. It is the view of some that refusing to comply was necessary to uphold the promises reporters made to their sources and that it amounted to a form of civil disobedience. Others said reporters were not above the law. Statement by NYT The New York Times in a special statement on the developments said: "We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court's determination not to review this very vital and controversial case; we fully support the position of Judith Miller and her decision to honor the commitment she made to her sources. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times, said, "It is shocking that for doing some routine newsgathering on an important public issue, keeping her word to her sources, and without our even publishing a story about the CIA agent, Judy finds herself facing a prison sentence. That 49 states and many countries around the globe provide broad protection for journalists, who have promised confidentiality to their sources, makes today's decision even more disappointing. And it is doubly painful that the Court rejected our case in the face of the plea of 34 state attorneys general, prosecutors who normally seek journalists' evidence, that anonymous sources are critical to provide information to the public." CPJ New York The New York based The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) issued a special statement on the US Supreme Court decision titled "U.S. sends the wrong message to the world" The CPJ states: "Restrictive regimes around the world came out ahead. Many were already taking a cue from a U.S. case involving the leak of a CIA officer's name when the Supreme Court announced this week that it would not hear an appeal by two journalists. The reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times, face 18-month jail terms for not revealing their confidential sources. U.S. President George W. Bush has raised the need for greater press freedom in Russia, the Middle East, and Asia, but the message from U.S. prosecutors and Courts is being heard more clearly in repressive corners of the world. Excerpts from the CPJ states: Venezuelan President Hugo Ch vez Fras recently complained when international observers criticized his country's new media law, which severely restricts broadcast news coverage in the name of maintaining social order that they should complain instead, about "U.S. journalists that are being prosecuted by the government in Washington for not revealing their sources." Because the United States has set a high standard for press freedom, any perceived weakening in U.S. protections provides cover for authoritarian regimes to justify crackdowns on the press. CPJ documented a spike in the number of journalists imprisoned worldwide in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, when restrictive governments appropriated the Bush administration's war rhetoric to clamp down on dissent. They may have a similar opportunity today. U.S. prosecutors and judges are setting an unfortunate example for the rest of world, the CPJ added. Profound Betrayal Referring to the decision of Time-Warner Inc. to now cave in and hand over the documents sought by the Grand Jury, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has accused Time-Warner, one of the world's largest media corporations of a "profound betrayal" of principle over its decision to publicly defy its reporter's wishes and hand over his notebook to avoid heavy fines in a Court action over protection of sources. Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, was ready to go to jail for refusing to name a source in a controversial story leaked from inside the White House. But the company yesterday took the matter out of his hands and announced it would hand over the information after losing a US Supreme Court appeal. However, a second journalist, Judith Miller of the New York Times, is standing firm and is backed by her company. "The action of Time-Warner is a profound betrayal of the cardinal principle of journalism," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "The company's decision to repudiate their own reporter when he seeks to defend the ethics of journalism is unconscionable. This failure of principle is not just a blow to professionalism and morale in one company, it is damaging for journalism the world over." The IFJ said it was "impossible not to conclude that commercial interests have taken priority over a principled defence of professional secrecy." IFJ welcomed the statement by the New York Times that it will stick by Judith Miller. At a time when the original call for a "Battle for Freedom" was quickly turned into a "War against Terrorism" by George W Bush, the decision of the US Supreme Court is a cause for major concern to all interested in the Freedom of Expression, Media Freedom and the Freedom of the Journalist. This threatens the promise of secrecy given to a source without which no effective journalism is possible. So far those who speak much about Media Freedom and the Ethics of Journalism in Sri Lanka have not been moved by such matters. However, it is a decision that needs the strongest condemnation, while giving more strength to the many Judith Millers and Matthew Coopers carrying on the work of journalism facing increasingly grave risks to themselves and their freedom. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
