Beware of secrecy, not reporters who find scandals
The exploits of Edward Snowden — from his asylum-seeking tours of China and Russia to his self-aggrandizing interviews — make it look as if leakers are a bunch of publicity hounds.
Quite the contrary: Almost all confidential sources who talk to reporters want to remain just that, confidential. And reporters promise to keep them that way.
The tradition of keeping confidences has brought many local and national stories to public attention. It allowed The Washington Post to reveal the shameful treatment of wounded soldiers at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. Photos obtained confidentially brought to light the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Leaks have exposed warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.
Simply put, many things the government wants to hide come out only because honest insiders, reporting wrongdoing or ineptitude, know that journalists will protect their identities.
Now that tradition is under attack on several fronts, which could intimidate potential sources and help to hide all manner of secrets. The Obama administration has prosecuted six former or current officials for leaks — twice as many as all previous administrations combined.
Last spring came reports that federal prosecutors had seized two months of records from 20 Associated Press phone lines in another leak investigation — giving the government access to the identities of anyone who talked to certain AP reporters during that time.
Now, the Justice Department is hounding New York Times reporter James Risen about the source of his report, in a 2006 book, of an inept CIA attempt to disrupt Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Prosecutors want him to testify against a former CIA official accused of leaking the information. Unless the Supreme Court agrees to review a 2-to-1 appellate ruling against Risen, he may end up in jail. Which would be a loss to all journalists and ultimately to the public.
One solution is a proposed “shield law” to protect reporters’ ability to keep promises to sources. The bill has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it needs to move forward.
The principle at stake is at least as important to the public as similar laws that allow lawyers, social workers and other professionals to keep clients’ confidences. Almost every state recognizes a similar privilege for reporters.
Critics argue that the Senate measure would set loose a flood of leaks of classified secrets. That’s doubtful, and in any case, letting the government operate in secret, unaccountable to the public, is a more vivid risk.
Nor does the Senate proposal offer blanket protection. In terrorism and national security cases, the burden on reporters who seek to shield sources would be high, and judges would decide when identities could be shielded — and when they must be revealed.
For all its actions to intimidate reporters and leakers, the Obama administration has backed this proposal. It is not, as some critics argue, a special interest law for reporters. It’s a law that supports one of the pillars of democracy, the public’s right to know things that the government would rather keep hidden.