H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Time magazine said today that it would provide documents concerning the confidential sources of one of its reporters to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. agent, Valerie Plame.
The United States Supreme Court turned down appeals in the case on Monday, concluding the gravest legal confrontation between the press and the government in a generation. Two reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, face jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury.
In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection.
“I found myself really coming to the conclusion,” he said, “that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do.”
The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.
The press has traditionally argued that it needs confidential sources to ensure that the public is fully informed. That interest is outweighed, recent court rulings have said, by the needs of the judicial system for evidence.
nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30cnd-leak.html?ei=5065&en=a6fcb325b37be9e8&ex=1120795200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
The United States Supreme Court turned down appeals in the case on Monday, concluding the gravest legal confrontation between the press and the government in a generation. Two reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, face jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury.
In an interview, Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection.
“I found myself really coming to the conclusion,” he said, “that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do.”
The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.
The press has traditionally argued that it needs confidential sources to ensure that the public is fully informed. That interest is outweighed, recent court rulings have said, by the needs of the judicial system for evidence.
nytimes.com/2005/06/30/politics/30cnd-leak.html?ei=5065&en=a6fcb325b37be9e8&ex=1120795200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print