XDA

After their appeal to the Supreme Court failed (Cert. was denied) the two reporters who alone are in line for punishment for the "outing" of CIA agent, and wife of truth challenged Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, namely Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, have to return to federal Court this afternoon for further proceedings regarding their contempt of the Court order that they reveal the identity of their sources. Cooper of Time magazine and Miller of the New York Times are the only ones who stand to be hurt in this whole affair because of the exceedingly narrow application of the anti-outing CIA agents law we have. One of the elements of the charge is that the outed CIA operative had to be overseas undercover some time during the 5 years before his or her identity was revealed. Based on what we know about Valerie Plame, this is so unlikely to be true, that the essential element is missing, so no crime was committed ... so ... why are we wasting time and effort investigating a non-crime? That's an easy one to answer; because the Democrats made such a stink about it that an investigation, no matter how moot, had to be ordered. Be careful what you wish for. Cooper and Miller certainly wish cooler heads had prevailed.

Drudge had it on his news site that Time is considering outing Cooper's sources. See it here. Here then is my question. If Cooper promised to protect his source and is willing, if not exactly eager, to go to jail for the limited period one can do for contempt (after 18 months the incarceration turns from coercive into punitive and has to end), where does Time get off revealing the source? It doesn't matter to the source who names him, Cooper or Cooper's boss, and the damage to the 'profession' of journalism is done, because everyone will be all that more hesitant to give information off the record in the future.

I think that unless there is a shield law (and there isn't here) journalists are no different from any other citizen who must obey a Court order or pay the price, but I also see the journalists' view that their word to the source is a sort of sacred bond for the good of all their brother and sister journalist. Of course, why everyone is so eager to publish information from a source who dares not speak his or her name is a different question. The journalists certainly don't have to promise to protect the source's identity. Still, if we take them at their word, that they can't afford to burn sources, we return to the first question. What is Time thinking? I haven't admired the people who run Time or their product in a long time. Apparently, it's no time to start now.