By PLS
“Scooter” Libby has been indicted. His (alleged) crime: perjury. He lied when he said, repeatedly, under oath, that his info about Valerie Plame had come from reporters, to others of whom he, in turn, generously passed on the juicy tidbits.
In fact, he obtained those attention-distracting tidbits from his own desperate colleagues in the Executive office, for whom he may now be taking the fall.
So Libby was playing games with reporters, but reporters played straight with him. Their instinct was to protect him, and they continued to do so even as it became obvious that he had toyed with them.
Yes, in most instances, reporters should protect their sources. Otherwise, whistle blowers won’t talk to them and the public won’t learn of political (or corporate) wrongdoing until entirely too much harm has been done.
Yes, we need a federal shield law to protect reporters who protect their sources.
But no shield law is absolute. There are times when reporters can be compelled to testify, to name names, in a court of law, but only if those names are material to the case at hand and only if all other sources of information have been exhausted. Reporters’ notebooks are the last, not the first resort.
Still, principles need to be applied intelligently, not slavishly, as Matthew Cooper did, and Judith Miller.
When it becomes likely that a source has used a reporter to trick the public into supporting an unnecessary war, the higher principle calls for the reporter to reveal what’s happening and who is doing it. That, in fact, was the real story in this case, but Cooper and Miller didn’t get it. They fell for a red herring and became dimwitted, self-righteous collaborators in a coverup.
In short, shield laws are needed, not primarily to protect sources, not primarily to protect reporters, but to protect the public.
This will make for hard choices, sometimes. But when lives are at stake, as in this case, the priorities become a little clearer.