Report’s FBI-media finding provides cause for concern
THERE is much in the Inspector General’s newly released review of FBI activity, but one finding should concern all citizens. The report indicates some FBI officials may have effectively taken bribes to leak nonpublic information.
The report reveals the IG “identified instances where FBI employees improperly received benefits from reporters, including tickets to sporting events, golfing outings, drinks and meals, and admittance to nonpublic social events.”
Neither the employees nor the reporters are identified, but the report states, “We will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded …”
This finding is concerning on two fronts. First, law enforcement officials are supposed to conduct themselves in an above-board manner that negates allegations prosecutions are pursued (or not) solely because agents have a personal ax to grind.
The report points out the United States Attorneys Manual instructs prosecutors that in “all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties.” The report states “there is ordinarily no legitimate governmental interest in the public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party.”
The report stresses the FBI “is acutely aware of the damage unauthorized communications or leaks can cause to investigations, prosecutions, the personal lives of those involved in the case or who may be subjects or targets, and the reputation of the Bureau.”
That FBI officials or other law enforcement agents might use the press to tar the reputations of people without bringing charges against those individuals is concerning.
The other problem with the apparent bribes is they tar all news organizations and lend credence to the “fake news” narrative. Reporting nonpublic information revealed by insiders is a longstanding and meritorious practice, but paying for information is a line that reputable publications don’t cross. Many newspapers have explicit policies banning payment to sources, because it brings into question the reliability of the information.
Jack Shafer of Slate.com noted this problem in 2010. If journalists start paying for information, Shafer wrote, “bushels of that information, accompanied by sellers, would miraculously appear overnight outside the door of every newspaper, broadcaster, and Web site.”
“How much truth, as opposed to half-truth, would people sell?” Shafer wrote. “How many patently false bundles of information, ginned up solely to collect a bounty, would the dollars generate?”
In a 2017 interview, Andy Schotz, chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics committee, warned, “Don’t pay for interviews. Don’t give sources gifts of any kind. Don’t try to exchange something of value in return for getting a source’s comments or information or access to them. Journalists and sources shouldn’t have any other relationship other than the one involved in gathering news.”
Buying a coffee or a burger during an interview may not strike many citizens as problematic, but providing tickets to sporting events or access to exclusive social events is another matter. FBI agents and media members who did so in this case insult all those who do their jobs the right way.