The media and the Steven Hatfill/anthrax case
USA Today reports on new developments in Steven Hatfill’s civil lawsuit against the government for implicating him in the 2001 anthrax attacks. One of the newspaper’s reporters has been held in contempt for refusing to name her anonymous sources and another reporter for CBS faces similar charges:
A federal judge held a former USA TODAY reporter in contempt of court on Tuesday for failing to identify sources who named former Army scientist Steven Hatfill as a possible suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he would begin fining Toni Locy $500 per day, escalating to $5,000 per day, until she identifies the sources.
Hatfill’s lawyers asked that Locy — and not her former employer or others — be required to pay the fines.
The judge said he would consider postponing the penalty, however, to allow Locy and her lawyers to appeal the contempt ruling. Walton didn’t immediately decide whether Locy would be personally responsible for payment of the fines, if imposed.
At the same time, Walton delayed a decision on whether to hold former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt for not disclosing sources for his reporting on the matter.
Hatfill, who was publicly identified in 2002 by then-attorney general John Ashcroft as a “person of interest” in the attacks, has never been charged. His lawyers have argued that news reports linking him to the federal investigation irreparably damaged his reputation.
“I don’t like to hold anyone in contempt,” Walton said. “I fully appreciate the importance of a free press. On the other hand, the media has to be responsible.”
The NYTimes also covers the story, with a quote from the judge that did not make it into the USA Today story. It’s very noteworthy and it’s buried at the bottom of the article:
Judge Walton said he would soon rule on whether his order would be delayed pending a probable appeal by Ms. Locy.
Ms. Locy and Mr. Stewart are the only journalists still facing contempt citations in the case. Because of procedural problems and other issues, the court previously threw out subpoenas seeking testimony from a number of other journalists, including Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, who first wrote in 2002 about a mysterious Army scientist he called Mr. Z, whom he later identified as Dr. Hatfill. A defamation suit against Mr. Kristof was dismissed last year, a decision now under appeal.
Judge Walton had some cautionary words for journalists on Tuesday, but he saved his harshest judgments for the unidentified officials who linked Dr. Hatfill to the anthrax investigation in the news media.
“There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with it,” the judge said, yet the public notoriety has “destroyed his life.”
Flashback August 2007: Report: MSM Source Disclosure Ordered in Anthrax Suit
Flashback 2002: David Tell, “The Hunting of Steven Hatfill.”
How quickly we’ve forgotten…
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
- discarded lies - hyperlinkopotamus
- Michelle Malkin » Judge: USAToday reporter in contempt, must personally pay fines
- The Dark Citadel » Blog Archive » Judge: USAToday reporter in contempt, must personally pay fines
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upAmSpecBlog
» Carly Fiorina's Twitter OpponentPundit & Pundette
» Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitorLegal Insurrection
» Will The Truth Be Hasan's Last Victim?The Powers That Be
» US Intel Knew Hasan Was Trying to Contact Al QaedaNewsBusters.org
» NYT's Krugman Quotes Song Proving ObamaCare Opponents' Point
It is true that this man’s honor has been totally destroyed by those allegations….someone needs to pay for that. I know when I hear his name I always associate him with the anthrax attacks…I suspect anyone who is plugged in does as well.
Institutional racism may have been the cause. Hatfill is a middle aged white man. Middle aged white men are institutionally defined as scum. The lowest of the low. The perpetrators of every evil.
So the agents on the case had nothing, best to make a scapegoat against whom a case of nothing might be made.
And the boogeyman against whom any slur might by thrown in today’s PC institutional culture? Well years ago it was a negro, and before that the micks or spicks, and before that …
Today it’s middle aged white men and they picked one from a hat of a few choices that would pass some superficial muster.
I went to college with Toni and have followed her work. She’s a good person and has what could be called, I guess, a journalistic ethic.
Not much of a ax grinder, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. Somehow the name Richard Jewel comes to mind…
meatpie, it seems to me that her overall ethics aren’t in question, and maybe she doesn’t have an axe to grind.
What I think is happening is both journalists here seem to be taking the “we are journalists, so we are above the law” approach as it applies to sources. They fail to comprehend that protecting sources is no longer valid when the story unjustly destroyed someone’s life.
You’re right — this is a tough spot, and a ‘Richard Jewel moment’….
Journalists should be above the law. The fact that there’s no federal journalism shield law is an embarrassment.
If journalists start giving away their anonymous sources, important stories down the road may never see the light of day. That is extremely harmful to this country.
I’d like to see a push to have Steven Hatfill’s name cleared. I’d love to see him win his lawsuits. But journalism is more important than just one man.
Is this going to be another Scooter Libby moment? Oh, wait…there must be a liberal involved in the leak, since no one on the left is calling for anyone’s head…yet.
Rusty,
Let me get this straight. You are against things like immunity in FISA for telecom companies, because some people are afraid that someone might know to whom they are talking but, when an actual person has been harmed, it really isn’t that big of a deal that journalists are covering up libelous sources?
I have an anon source that says Richard Jewell did it.
sarc/
Hey Rusty, you forgot the sarcasm tag!
#5 On February 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Rusty said:
“Journalists should be above the law.”
Un-be-liev-a-ble.
I’ll repeat that, in case you missed it.
On February 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Rusty said:
“Journalists should be above the law.”
Wow.
Rusty,
But journalism is more important than just one man.
This may somehow appear acceptable to some, unless you are that one man. Journalism is allowed to protect its sources when there is a valid reason. But when the source uses the journalist to smear then the shield comes down.
You’ve got to be kidding, right? They should be held to an even higher standard because what they write/say has a huge and sometimes far-reaching impact on our country as well as individuals.
On February 20th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Rusty said:
Journalists should be above the law. The fact that there’s no federal journalism shield law is an embarrassment.
Rusty, Nobody is above the law! Journalists should not feel free to smear a person and hide behind the term “an anonymous source” without have facts to back up their allegations.
Ooooo dawg. Dem’s fightin’ words. Bet Frank Rich is working himself into a hissy fit right now.
Rusty said:
Good use of false dichotomy. It might be more accurate to say that an individual’s right are not subordinate to any occupation.
No, their shouldn’t be an all-encompassing journalism shield law. under that line of thinking, I could write a story claiming X did something, and anonymous sources told me so, and possibly ruin X’s career, marriage, life.
Journalists are not above the law. They are citizens who have an obligation to report stories honestly and ethically. When their sources turn out to be false – as it seems these sources were – and those stories lead to real harm for an individual, group, or organization the journalist has an obligation to cite those faulty sources.
There isn’t a shred of evidence showing Hatfill was the perpetrator of these crimes, Ms. Locy is facing potentially thousands of dollars in a fines, and yet she’s not talking. It smacks of a cover-up or, at least, shoddy reporting.
Journalists should not be above the law.
But what if the journalist worked for an eeeevil telecom, tracking al Qaeda’s phone traffic?
Rusty, according to an annonymous source you are a pediphile. Would you care to comment.
Liberals are still afraid of journalists having to tell the true identity of their sources…
Remember all the fun they had spreading the lie that Karl Rove was the leaker – and how they didn’t care it was actually Armitage…
As for the press being ‘Above the Law’ – Rusty, thou art a horses patoot.
No one – NO ONE – can be above the law in that manner. Especially in this instance where the presiding judge has virtually declared that there is no evidence to back up the newspaper’s claim.
I don’t remember any liberals whining about how journalists should be above the law during the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.
Now, that would be a whole different story, Tiger.
We all know that liberal don’t really want everyone above the law, JRL.
What would that do to their calls for impeachment of Bush and Cheney? LOL
He’s away with his next victim now, sources say.
Rusty,
Journalists deserve no more rights under the law than any other person, including you.
Digga
Rusty,
A journalist told me your underwear says ‘October’.
Ummm….
Under the Constitution PEOPLE have rights, not institutions.
Even with Freedom of Speech, you can still be held accountable for that speech.
And truthfully, the idea that the press is above the law is the exact reason why people are less and less likely to trust it.
Personaly I think they should do two things, in concert.
Natonal Whistle Blower protection law, and a law that makes it a felony to use anonymous sources.
If you are not willing to see your name in print, you should NOT be talking about that subject… and the press should not be writing about it.
Frankly, I think the fines collected from the so-called journalist should be transferred to this poor man. Where does he go to get his life and reputation back? The total lack of evidence against him should at the very least allow him to buy far reaching ads proclaiming his innocence.
I agree, the name Richard Jewell comes immediately to mind.
WOW, rob a bank and flash your “Journalist” badge.
“Yes officer, I was doing 50mph over the speed limit but, I am a Journalist.”
“Sorry Mr. Soap, my bad. Have a nice day!”
The possibilities are endless!
But what if the journalist worked for an eeeevil telecom, tracking al Qaeda’s phone traffic by day, and by night bashed gays? Still above the law?
I guess we would have to take the bad with the good, Tiger.
Rusty, here’s a little light reading for you, it’s called the 6th amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Barry F., I never said I was against FISA telecom immunity. To be honest, I haven’t really thought about it.
A good shield law could easily protect journalists from obtaining good information while exposing those giving bad information.
For example, Larry Flynt was prosecuted for not giving away his sources on obtaining a tape that was incredibly embarrassing to the FBI. We needed a shield law to protect him. After all, if there’s video tape of FBI officials threatening someone’s daughter’s life (as was the case there), the press should get their hands on it.
That being said, if there is information being disseminated that is patent crap, then, yeah, the shield shouldn’t apply. I’m right there with you, EQ and madchef.
But right now there is no legal distinction between good and bad information. And until that distinction is met, it is unethical to reveal sources. It damages the entire industry.
Journalists/Reports should be directly and fully accountable for their comments, especially for baseless accusations. If facts and evidence are presented, and they protect the name of a source- that would be one thing- but quoting an “anonymous” source with no evidence or facts whatsoever- shouldnt give a free pass to snipe anyone and everyone at all times about anything.
What if there is NOT an actual source? If the journalist snipes someone with false information and has no evidence or facts to base it on, then they should be held personally accountable.
Last time I checked, the “industry” didn’t need any help. A “shield” would bring in integrity – somehow?
No. It would encourage people to come forward with good information without being exposed. Sort of like a whistle blower law.
It is bad enough to live in a country where politicians are ‘above the law’ as recent events have shown.
NB, Rusty, nobody should be above the law, not you, not me and not a journalist – did you not learn from the Plame fiasco?
Rusty, where can I get one of them there Journalist badges so I can be above the law, too? Does writing these comments on Michelle’s web site qualify me? Or do I have to join some union or something first?
How about I call myself an “undocumented” journalist, would that be enough to put me above the law in your book?
To this day I am willing to bet that the person who sent the Anthrax was one of the Al Queda terrorists. Lets see they started from Florida, drove through DC as they made it to Portland Maine. The timing and the locations fit, else it is just too coincidental.
Well, dang. You just wiped out coverage for the MSM with that talk of “disseminated…crap” not being covered. Don’t even worry about “legal distinction”, at this point. The MSM needs to work on a journalistic distinction between “good and bad information.”
Do I ever agree with this. I consider myself a radical capitalist. Each individual is a company of one and represents himself. Corporations in my opinion have no rights. I believe it holds for patents and copyrights also.
So it’s ok to ruin someone’s life?
The 6th Amendment exists to protect against anonymous charges. Notice the phrase “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”. That means the state can force people to testify…
Is Rusty for real? To think journelist should be above the law is ASSININE!!!!!
No one, I repete for you Rusty NO O N E!!!! should be or is above the law. Your liberal minomers on reality are showing. When we as a society let even one person above the, we no longer become a free and open society. We cross the line into dictatorship and oppression. Giving a pass to break the laws and do whatever they want to do. In this case allowing op/ed writers a chance to report their political view over the truth is moving into a time machine and living in Moscow of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
As for the push I would like to see a push alright. One that would push boneheads like yourself right off a cliff and into your make believe world and out of reality.
Rusty #31 said
That being said, if there is information being disseminated that is patent crap, then, yeah, the shield shouldn’t apply. I’m right there with you, EQ and madchef.
But right now there is no legal distinction between good and bad information. And until that distinction is met, it is unethical to reveal sources. It damages the entire industry.
Rusty if they don’t have to show proof, then the accused is forced to disprove a lie.
I a journalist was to say that according to an annonymous source, Mr. X destroyed evidence that he was a sock sniffer. How can Mr. X defend himself against an accusation? He can say he dosen’t sniff socks, but the damage is already done.
When I see a quote from “an anonymous source” the first possibilities that pop into my mind are:
1. The source has an axe to grind, and may be making it up.
2. There may be no “source”, and the journalist is making the whole thing up.
We’ve seen way too many cases where journalists have misquoted or taken out of context a named source’s remarks. And we’ve seen cases where a source has lied (TANG documents, anyone)? And cases where journalists have made stories up. An anonymous source is completely unverifiable, you might as well just label the story a lie and be done with it.
And then there are the cases where the journalist is, by keeping the source anonymous, an accessory to the source’s criminal action. A few examples from the NYT come to mind.
Which is, because of the First Amendment, exactly how libel and slander laws already work in this country.
Where is it written in stone that a journalist, when confronted with the fact that their source gave them a bunch of BS – has to protect them?
The fact that these reporters stonewall to protect lying or rumor-spreading idiots does more to damage the reputation of the media than anything else, except when they refuse to own up to the fact that what they wrote or reported on is fictional.
Rusty, check the VI amendment, a person has a right to face their accuser.
The first amendment only gives the press the right to publish the truth, not lies. It’ called checks and balances.
The laws in thei country dealing with libel and slander are already among the most lienant in the world when it comes to holding someone responsible.
But, when you are able to meet the relatively high standard of harm, ANYONE who spreads the lie is likewise responsible. That means that reporters and news organizations who go off hafl cocked and run with a story that they do not corroborate can be on the hot seat.
It is very possible here that the reporters and news organizations are trying to cover their own posteriors by withholding the information. Because once the cource is identified, the issue of the credibility of the information comes to light.
If they are not required to produce the information necessary, we have created a new de facto standard that effectively says that journalists are not responsible for their actions. Fact is, with the power of the pen at their disposal, they should be held to a higher standard than the average person.
Another consideration – without a “source” there is a possibilty that there was no government source for the information, and that the writer
Hit the darn send key by mistake…
Another consideration – without a “source” there is a possibilty that there was no government source for the information, and that the writer made the whole thing up. If that is the case, then the government is off the hook, and the news organization becomes the target.
Rusty,
I’m glad there’s some spirited debate on this.
I see your point about the shield law, and read your comment that it should not apply in a case such as this. Yes, there needs to be some kind of legal distinction between this type of case and a legit reason to conceal a source.
That said, this case is a great opportunity for the journalists involved to stand up and make that exact point by revealing the bum that passed the bad info.
The problem there is that makes it less likely that other anonymous sources will come forward. We need a law saying that if an anonymous source spreads good information (like Deep Throat or whoever sent that FBI tape to Larry Flynt), then he/she’ll be protected. That means that they better be damned sure before talking to a journalist.
Madchef, I understand the 6th Amendment. It absolutely does not apply to this case. It applies to those being accused of crimes. Hatfill, who unfortunately had his name dragged through the mud, was never actually charged or accused with anything.
What if the journalist knows that a source is flawed, biased, discredited, on drugs, or outright lying? It sure makes the wild story more believable to withhold the name of a bad or even nonexistent source.
After decades of seeing the news interfere with, ignore, or stir up and cause the news themselves- people have a lower approval rating for the media than for the president atm.
The media is not an impratial historian, but often very biased partisans that selectively attack and defend differing people and policies.
Have you noticed how they launch alot of negative/positive press on an issue or politician or the economy to drive public opinion- and then when facts dont support their allegations, then they quote opinion polls of people biased by the news stories but with no personal qualification or information on the subject. Its a vicious circle or a self fulfilling prophesy or propaganda to influence public opinion, and then use the opinion polls to continue their agenda.
Remember in the 2000 election when they called the election for Gore in Florida, while the polls were still open and people in the western part of the state were still standing in line to vote, or hadnt left for the polls yet due to work or other reasons?
How many lawful votes were discouraged by the media calling the state early as won for the wrong candidate?
No, I do not trust the media- I use discretion and common sense to screen the info i get and look for differeing sources of information. When I do read or hear something new, I screen out the desciptors and boil the comments down to their most basic terms and thats the only real info that I try to take from the piece.
Finally, a journalist is held accountable for being a blabbermouth!!!!!
Rusty,
I think our point of contention is that I don’t think we really need to wait for a new law before a journalist steps up and reveals a source of bad information.
In fact, I believe that would do exactly what you suggest: sources would make damned sure thay were correct before stepping forward themselves.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page, I just think in this case there is no one good to protect. There is no law, therefore, preventing the journalist from talking. Also, I doubt future legit whistleblowers would be all that deterred if this journalist did the right thing here.
Rusty said:
If only…if only…we had a…Ministry of Information to prescreen every piece of journalism to determine if the content were good
or bad 
. Yeah, a Ministry of Information. That’s the ticket.
The Ministry could even stamp each piece with an emoticon to indicate the grade.
The solution is obvious. Locy must come forward and admit that there was no source, that she pulled the information out of her arse to make a good story, betting her career that it might be right. As she bet wrong, her career will be over, but she can always change jobs to something where dissembling and obfuscation are more of an asset (cough cough Obama campaign worker cough cough).
Journalist are supposed to follow a code of ethics. The fact that a story was written with erroneous information and harm was done to a man’s career negates this story as journalism. So the confidential source, if one exists, is a liar and libel and does not deserve to remain anonymous nor does the “journalist” have to honor the confidentiality agreement. If the story was true the opposite would be valid and this person would have done society a favor.
When the 1ST amendment was written Dr. Hatfill could have challenged all that besmirched his honor to a duel.
Journalism was a much more honorable profession back then. Today the pendulum has swung way to far in the presses favor.
We can’t bring back the duel, but we can come close. A reporter who refuses in court to identify a source, should at a minimum be found in Contempt of Court and receive a lifetime ban on employment in the press. Fines should be assessed for continued refusal along with jail time.
Rusty,
My congratulations. I never thought I would see the day when the names “Deep Throat” and “Larry Flynt” could be used in the same sentence in a clean context.
Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar & Steven Hatfill…
George W. Bush Administration: 0 for 3.
On February 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm, Jim M. said:
Rusty,
My congratulations. I never thought I would see the day when the names “Deep Throat” and “Larry Flynt” could be used in the same sentence in a clean context.
LOL
What a great observation!
Yeah, we haven’t gotten any bad guys have we?
troll feeding over.
I’d like to see a push to have Steven Hatfill’s name cleared. I’d love to see him win his lawsuits. But journalism is more important than just one man.
Obviously Rusty’s value system is quite the opposite of God who created man in His own image. Someday Rusty will realize what he has squandered, but alas it might be too late then.
Don’t know the purpose of the anonymous source arguments. Unless there is verification, anonymous sources are meaningless. That is journalism 101.
If anyone is interested, here is the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code regarding sources:
If the anonymous source in question gave good information but the journalist wrote a bad article or reached the wrong conclusions, then that source should absolutely still be protected.
Obviously I am arguing under the assumption that everything done here was in good faith. That there was a source and that he/she didn’t feed Ms. Locy bad information. Which is admittedly a stretch. But when discussing ethics, we can’t just use bad apples as an excuse to throw out the entire kit and kaboodle. The protection of sources is of the utmost importance to journalism.
And I stand by that journalism is more important than the reputation of one man. Journalism has the power to save lives and to bring governments down to its knees. There’s a reason one of the first freedoms to go out the door in repressive societies is the press.