If there is one issue of which it can be said that I have "harped" on while wrting this blog, I think the "Plame" affair and questions of "shield laws" for reporters would be it. (You can read my earlier ruminations, here, here, here & here.) A major complain I've had is that the portrayal of the issue in the media has been so one-sided and, frankly, biased. So I was happy to see that Steve Chapman has written a piece that actually does take a non-reporters view of the matter: In the Plame Case, The Press Goes Too Far. It also helps that he agrees with me that the press has not been covering this story fairly.
The news media have sided strongly with reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, who are threatened with jail unless they disclose their sources in the Valerie Plame case. Right now, that decision is starting to look like Custer's Last Stand. It's a battle the press can't win and doesn't deserve to win.
-----
We have a federal law against uncovering CIA operatives for a very good reason. It would be a dead letter, though, if a government official could violate it with impunity by giving the information to a journalist.
The press is right in saying an important principle is at stake: its ability to get information that the public needs to know. But in this case, that principle should yield to the need to protect agents who are serving their country. Journalists might remember that sometimes, a vice is merely a virtue that is taken too far.
The benefit of Chapman's analysis is that he does exactly what he should do, namely, attempt to balance competing interests. The attempt by some reporters to make the protection of sources a nearly inviolable right just takes things too far. They will have to settle for something less.
No comments:
Post a Comment