Reporter Convicted for Protecting Source

[Gawain 0]

It's an AP article on Fox News

I don't know what to think of it. The issue here is that there was a court order for no information pertaining to an investigation be leaked. Information leaks and this reporter airs it. Now, lacking that order, I see the reporter's case. In light of that order, I'm not sure what to think. I still see the reporter's argument, but I also understand the other side as well. Not an easy solution.

Quote

'Plunder Dome' Reporter Convicted for Protecting Source
Thursday, November 18, 2004

PROVIDENCE, R.I.  — A TV reporter was convicted of criminal contempt Thursday for refusing to say who leaked him an FBI videotape of a politician taking a bribe — the latest in a string of cases in which journalists have been threatened with jail for protecting a source.

Jim Taricani (search) of WJAR was found guilty by a judge after a 45-minute trial and could get up to six months behind bars when he is sentenced next month.

Taricani called the verdict an "assault on journalistic freedom" and said he never thought he would have to serve time for doing his job.

"No reporter should have to pay such a terribly high price for honestly and legally reporting the news," WJAR said.


Taricani is one of several journalists nationwide who are locked in First Amendment battles with the government over confidential sources. That includes reporters for Time and The New York Times who have been held in contempt as part of an investigation into the disclosure of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Taricani, 55, got in trouble over a video that shows an undercover FBI informant giving an envelope full of cash to a top aide to former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci Jr. (search) Cianci and the aide, Frank Corrente, were convicted in a corruption case and are in prison.

The reporter broke no law by airing the tape in 2001, but a special prosecutor was appointed to find out who leaked it because the court had ordered no one to release any tapes connected to the case.

U.S. District Judge Ernest Torres (search) has said the leak was meant to either disrupt the investigation or deprive defendants of a fair trial by influencing prospective jurors. He ordered Taricani to answer questions about the tape last fall, but Taricani refused, saying he has a First Amendment right to keep his sources confidential.

In March, the judge found Taricani in civil contempt and imposed a $1,000-a-day fine until he identified his source. WJAR, owned by NBC, paid $85,000 on Taricani's behalf until the judge suspended the fine two weeks ago, saying it had not achieved its goal.

At Thursday's trial, Torres rejected a defense request to dismiss the case, and said it is "a complete distortion of the issue" to argue a First Amendment privilege.

The judge said the reporter's intent in protecting his source was not a factor in determining his guilt. "The issue is a very simple one," Torres said. "Did [the reporter] willfully violate this court's order? The evidence is clear ... and undisputed."

The judge has said that he would not sentence Taricani to more than six months in prison because of the reporter's health. Taricani received a heart transplant in 1996.

"I admire him enormously for sticking to his word," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "If journalists start revealing confidential sources, they are going to be viewed as an arm of the government and government investigators."

Just hours after the verdict, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he will introduce legislation as soon as Friday that would create a federal shield law for members of the media. The bill would protect reporters from being forced to provide information about their sources, and also protect notes, film, video or audio tapes, outtakes, photographs or negatives.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jib 0]

The concern that I have is what is the scope of a judge's gag order? I would think he has control over those with access to a tape, but to hold someone in criminal contempt for refusing to identify the person that made the violation? "Did [the reporter] willfully violate this court's order?" I have a problem with a judge who's order extends beyond the parties to the case. That said I have also have a problem with media airing things that they should not have access to had the source done as they were supposed to i.e. Bin Laden's sat phone. I think there is a distinction for whistle blowing disclosures though.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

If I am not mistaken, there has been an established legal precedent of not forcing the reporter to reveal the source. I'll have to see if I can find the court cases on that....I remember covering this in my mass media law class, but the details are foggy right now.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[unformed 0]

I would expect that this will be appealed at a higher court.

Sometime like this should never happen. Sources are confidential for a reason.

This ad space for sale.

[mailin 0]

This is big news here (I live in Providence). I feel sorry for him because RI media has a horrible track record of sensationalism and bias.

It was great to see the way the media handled Buddy's 'demise'. Of course.... poll the people that live in Providence and they all love Buddy. If he was eligible, he'd be elected again

With that being said, I don't appreciate the way he did it, but he did wonderful things for the city of Providence.


Jen

Arianna Frances

[GQ_jumper 4]

Although the reporter was exercising his freedom of speech by airing the tape he was hiding the identity of someone he knew commited a crime and should be held responsible for that. IMO at least.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Paulipod 0]

I would have to agree...

Basically, in whatever guise... this is obstructing the course of justice. Someone commits a crime - and someone prevents their prosecution.

Protecting any criminal in the name of news integrity is not really on.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Although the reporter was exercising his freedom of speech by airing the tape he was hiding the identity of someone he knew commited a crime and should be held responsible for that. IMO at least.

The problem is the First Amendment is exactly that, the first one. And the video footage he aired is not fraudulent in any way.

Violating a gag order seems akin to the crime of lying to Congress. Pales in comparison to the crime on the footage.

[Paulipod 0]

It read like the reporter was prosecuted for not responding when directly asked by the court... not that he broke the original gag-order...

If a reporter knew the identity of a murderer for example, I would vote every time that they dont have the right to keep it 'confidential' becuase of the rights to a news story.

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If a reporter knew the identity of a murderer for example, I would vote every time that they dont have the right to keep it 'confidential' becuase of the rights to a news story.

Providing evidence of crime by a public official is 7 planes off that of a murderer. Try again, please.

BTW, if the reporter was married to the murderer, he would have the right to keep it confidential.