Most Editors Say They'd Publish Articles Based on Leaks

Most Editors Say They'd Publish Articles Based on Leaks
By David Cay Johnston
Source: NY Times
7/11/05

In the wake of a decision by the editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer to withhold two articles based on leaked government documents for fear of criminal prosecution, editors of major newspapers said last week they saw no reason to back off such stories.

A number of these editors said they were baffled by the paper's move.

Paul Steiger, managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that "if documents come to a reporter or news organization and the reporter has not done anything illegal to get the documents, I cannot understand what the basis for a criminal prosecution would be."

In a column on June 30, Doug Clifton, editor of The Plain Dealer, revealed his decision to withhold two investigative articles about local corruption because he believed the newspaper might be criminally prosecuted. He wrote that he was doing so even though both he and his reporters were prepared to go to jail if necessary.

The column was about the prospect that Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine would be jailed for refusing to name sources in a case involving the identity of an undercover intelligence agent. Ms. Miller was jailed last week, while Mr. Cooper agreed to testify after his source released him from the confidentiality pledge. Time also faced a contempt charge, but The Times did not.

Mr. Clifton said in an interview that The Plain Dealer's lawyers had persuaded him that "the paper could be criminally charged as an institution," and that "the corporate citizen, the corporate entity, has a different level of responsibility" than individual journalists.

The publication of accurate information, even information that the source was not authorized to provide, is not a crime in most jurisdictions. But as the Time case shows, a news organization can be subpoenaed, and fined or even held in criminal contempt, for refusing to turn over documents that could identify a source who may have broken the law.

The Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest daily, is part of the Newhouse chain. Mr. Clifton said that Donald Newhouse, who is known to keep a close eye on the contents of his family's newspapers while encouraging aggressive reporting, was not consulted on the decision. He said his newspaper was continuing its investigations, but without citing "these golden documents" detailing government corruption.

One example of the level of concern about government and private efforts to unmask sources is a new ethics policy at The Los Angeles Times, to be issued this week, which instructs journalists to "never enter into any company computer unnamed sources."

John S. Carroll, the paper's editor, said the policy was motivated by the concern that prosecutors could unmask sources by issuing subpoenas to the newspaper's technology support staff, or even the chief executive of the Tribune Company, which owns The Los Angeles Times. "They don't operate by the same rules as we do" in the newsroom, Mr. Carroll said.

But editors said their approach to using leaked documents was unchanged. Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of another Newhouse newspaper, The Oregonian in Portland, said, "I have never had any hesitation on publishing solid stories based on government documents we had, and I have never announced that we had any document except in a news story."

David Boardman, managing editor of The Seattle Times, which is controlled by the Blethen family, was among several editors who wondered aloud whether the ownership of broadcast stations and cable systems, licensed by the government, was affecting editors' ability to stand firm against government pressure.

"I'm fortunate to work for an independent publisher who has no hesitation to challenge government through journalism," Mr. Boardman said.