Report: MSM Source Disclosure Ordered in Anthrax Suit
Interesting development in a civil suit that should be getting more attention:
Five reporters must reveal their government sources for stories they wrote about Steven J. Hatfill and investigators’ suspicions that the former Army scientist was behind the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, a federal judge ruled yesterday. The decision from U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton is yet another blow to the news industry as it seeks to shield anonymous sources who provide critical information — especially on the secret inner workings of government.
“The names of the sources are central to Dr. Hatfill’s case,” Walton wrote in a 31-page opinion.
The ruling is a victory for Hatfill, a bioterrorism expert who has argued in a civil suit that the government violated his privacy rights and ruined his chances at a job by unfairly leaking information about the probe. He has not been charged in the attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others, and he has denied wrongdoing.
Hatfill’s suit, filed in 2003, accuses the government of waging a “coordinated smear campaign.” To succeed, Hatfill and his attorneys have been seeking the identities of FBI and Justice Department officials who disclosed disparaging information about him to the media. In lengthy depositions in the case, reporters have identified 100 instances when Justice or FBI sources provided them with information about the investigation of Hatfill and the techniques used to probe his possible role in anthrax-laced mailings. But the reporters have refused to name the individuals.
The decision means that five journalists — Allan Lengel of the Washington Post; Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, both of Newsweek; Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today; and James Stewart of CBS News — are under instruction from the court to answer specific questions about who provided them with information about the investigation’s focus on Hatfill.
This seems rather significant. I’ll leave it to the legal eagles to say whether the ruling has a chance of holding up. I’ll just say this: All of sudden the penumbra crowd is not so fond of the penumbras:
Walton declined to recognize the existence of a federal common law privilege for reporters. Also, the judge broadly defined the kinds of information that, if released, would violate the Privacy Act to include almost anything specific to Hatfill and suspicions about him. Media lawyers argued the Privacy Act was not intended to apply to the information they reported about Hatfill.
***
Glenn Reynolds observes:
“There’s no constitutional reason for these sources to be protected, and no other good reason that I can see. The press’s abuse of anonymous sources is in the process of generating considerable blowback, and rightly so.”
***
How quickly the unsolved anthrax attacks have faded from public memory. We’re nearing the sixth anniversary of 9/11, but nowhere near solving the anthrax terrorism that occurred in the wake of the suicide plane missions. 22 injured, five dead. And no clue:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- OpinionBug.com » Court Orders Reporters To Reveal Sources In Hatfill Anthrax Case
- Rhymes With Right
- Captain's Quarters
- Bill's Bites
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Michelle Malkin » The media and the Steven Hatfill/anthrax case
- Reporter required to pay up or stop shielding leaker » Pursuing Holiness
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Stupak: the Sanctity of Life is Important to Us, Which is Why We Will Slash Care for Old People and Further Enslave Children to Massive Deficits
Legal Insurrection
» David Frum Says We're To BlameStop The ACLU
» Dan Benishek: the alternative to Bart Sell-out StupakStop The ACLU
» Reconciliation Bill May Never HappenHot Air
» Open thread: House votes comingJustOneMinute
» Count Every Vote
Does anyone know if they were paid for this info? just curious.
Talk about a story off the radar.
I have problems with special “Class” privileges being granted to self defining groups like “Reporters” and “Journalist.” Only if anyone that makes any public statement or commentary would automatically join the ranks would I consider it matching any test for fairness. Otherwise, there will have to be door keepers defining the “In’s” and the “Out’s”. Such keepers will always lead to unpopular speech being suppressed.
Because it offers zero risk or worry from the public. As far as most people think, it’s a dead story. Sad, but true.
Plus between 2000-2005 102,000 Americans died because of drunk drivers, 228,000 second hand smoke and over 3 million from heart disease.
Not only is the above not reported on MSM – it isn’t reported on sites like MM and LGF (because it isn’t about Illegal Immigrants/Islamic Terrorism/Anthrax attacks/John Edwards’ hair)
Said with love x
How true!
I’d be willing to bet that most people don’t believe there has been a “bio” attack in the GWOT.
I think the heart of your response goes to something recently said by GAO Chief Michael Walker
He forgot personal responsibility, but I forgive him, as that is not the GAO’s mission
Oh, and I’d be willing to bet those informants didn’t get paid. There’s a mindset in those with perceived power, that they also have moral incorruptibility. They believe that their actions alone make something “right”. Why do you think there have been so many leaks from intelligence agencies lately, and so many of them proven wrong?
People in those positions think they are seeing the bigger picture, which is true for the area that they are covering (Illegal Immigrants/Islamic Terrorism/Anthrax attacks/John Edwards’ hair). The problem is there is always something else that they do not see; the unintended consequence.
If you don’t believe me, read about Robert Hannsen (and not the Hollywood-ized version from “Breach”).
“Plus between 2000-2005 102,000 Americans died because of drunk drivers, 228,000 second hand smoke and over 3 million from heart disease.”
Not only is the above not reported on MSM – it isn’t reported on sites like MM and LGF (because it isn’t about Illegal Immigrants/Islamic Terrorism/Anthrax attacks/John Edwards’ hair)”
Actually, the drunk driving, second-hand smoke issues and heart disease ARE reported by the MSM.
MM & LGF, et al, are privately run sites who can, and do, choose to run stories that, many time, the MSM WON’T report on. How much have you seen on the MSM regarding such issues as Private Beauchamp? Illegal immigrant criminals? The Blue Angel flap?
Funny how you didn’t include Kos, Huffington, et al, in your complaint….
I guess the issues THEY cover ( Rove, Bush, Rove, Bush, Rove, Bush, O’Reilly, Rove ) are the most important.
Steve Hatfill vs. MSM = Battle of Stalingrad; I want them both to loose.
There is another angle to consider, too — just re-write a single paragraph from the judge’s ruling.
The logic works equally well if we modify one word and one phrase.
Watch out, WaPo and NYTimes — those national security leaks could come back and bite you in the butt.
Didn’t Congress talk about some law that would allow reporters protection so they could not be sued in cases like this? I have not heard any more about it lately though. I sure hope it did not pass with no one knowing about it.
It seems like what you have here is someone who’s been indicated in a terrible terrorist-type scare, but never been charged with any aspect of this crime.
His reputation is ruined – he can’t get a job in his field due to this – and it stems from ‘leaks’ to reporters from our Justice Department and FBI.
How long is the public going to tolerate these ‘leaks’? Why can’t these agencies simply do their job and stay away from the sensationalistic opportunities to become somebody’s ‘Deep Throat’?
If this man truly is innocent ( and there’s been no legal proof otherwise at this point ) – is he just supposed to sit back and let the media and these secret sources ruin his life?
Scarier yet – it can happen to anyone.
Enough of these bogus ‘confidential’ sources. Sometimes, yes, they are crucial – but how is it legal for all these sources to be leaking confidential and sometimes crucially secret information and then get away with it?
Additional note: Where’s the left’s cry for THIS person’s ruined life? They cried ( and continue to ) over the ruination of Valerie Plame – and DEMANDED to know the source of that. Suddenly there’s a deafening silence.
Generally, I’m ok with the Press Shield concept.
If MM got her hands on Beauchamp’s signed recanting, I think we’d all agree that both her and her source would be better off without her naming who gave it to her.
It lets reporters protect people who come forward with pretty damning evidence.
But I will also agree that often people who have no training of background in journalism often try to abuse the concept.
And when sources lead to people being strung up in the public eye, who end up not actually being guilty, then the reporters should be made to fess up.
If the source can be so completely wrong, they can be so completely KNOWN…
jrlingreenbay, unless Karl Rove or Dick Cheney played a role in it, the left doesn’t care. It’s just example #545,454,453 of the left’s selective outrage.
You need only look at this:
to know where their cries are.
They are being drowned out by their fury over the unfair treatment of two bomb-carriers in SC and the like.
Honestly, you think a bioterrorism guy will get any help? Unless he’s on record saying there were no WMDs. Then they’d be falling over themselves trying to help the guy.
Someone musta hit “The cone of silence” button again jrl.
Missed it…by that much………
lol
Basically, the argument of these news organizations boils down to:
“We have the legal right to print any lie someone wants to tell us, destroy any life we care to, unwarranted, and suffer no consequences to ourselves or our ’sources’ (if we actually have any sources). You legally have to trust us.”
On August 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am, swj719AWG said:
So who defines which people are “reporters” or “crack pots?”. Are you a reporter because some big news corporation gave you that title? Are you a reporter because you towed the line at some collage and had your views properly vetted by academia?
Who watches the watches when the watches can shield themselves by claiming confidentiality and LIE without recourse. Sources that do not exist can be used by reporters to push whatever falsehood on the public and a “shield law” will ensure that will happen. It already happen under current law and will only increase when reporters can shield themselves from disclosing the truth.
I have friends that work in the newspaper business and they are not demigods of truth. “Shield Laws” make as much sense as allowing someone that is about to perform open heart surgery be shielded from being ask where he got his training and confirming it with the medical school.
Yes, 99% are good people but that 1% can give you a really bad day.