Must a Journalist Reveal Her Sources?

How quickly we forget, and how easy it is to sweep untidy matters under the rug.

On the eve of the War in Iraq, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq was procuring nuclear materials. He found no evidence for these claims, and officially reported this. When George Bush went forward with this claim in his State of the Union speech, Wilson was incensed and went public with his information. That was an embarrassing moment for the Bush administration.

Shortly after Wilson's public dissent, Robert Novak (a conservative pundit with strong ties to the White House) reported that Wilson had been asked to investigate the allegations by his own wife, who happened to be a CIA operative.

(Novak had confirmed this with the CIA, which asked him to not reveal the information. They told Novak that this could endanger not only Mrs. Wilson but many others as well. He still chose to go public. Novak has since denied that the Bush administration asked him to do this.)

Wilson immediately went public again, alleging that the Bush administration had leaked this information in an attempt to intimidate him and endanger his wife and the others.

At this point something happened that no one had really foreseen: People got angry. So, Bush was forced to demand an investigation into the leak. Perhaps Bush truly did not know of the leak until it was too late. Perhaps he did not want anyone leaking anything to the press without his OK first. Perhaps it had his OK and he was trying to anoint a scapegoat. It is even possible that this has been carefully orchestrated to allow the government an attempt at controlling the press.

But whatever the reasons were, an investigation was launched and pressure was applied to the reporters who initially broke the story. They were threatened that if they didn't reveal their source, they would face jail time.

What is truly amazing is that Bob Novak was not the person who has been dragged through court over this, even though he is the one who broke the story. Instead, he pointed to two colleagues who had passed the story on to him, and they have been in court ever since. Novak has sat back in comfort, saying he will 'reveal all' if the two reporters talk. One wonders what these two journalists think of his generosity.

Here we are, exactly 2 years later, and the battle continues. At this point, the source has been identified and is willing to go public, but the journalists responsible for the information remain stubborn. They stick to the principle that a journalist does not reveal his sources. And both are about to face jail time as a result of this principle. The fact that the source is now known, and the government still presses on, indicates a greater agenda than this one.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality - no one in America is," Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told a judge.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan held the reporters in civil contempt of court in October, rejecting their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources. Hogan was conducting a hearing on the matter Wednesday, at which time he could order the reporters jailed.

Although I feel these journalists should never have revealed such information, and although Bob Novak has been unjustly given a hall pass in this mess, I am very concerned to see that these two journalist are about to face jail time defending a principle which we all hold dear.

If they cave, this is an issue that will be far reaching. There will be no more stories like the Watergate revelation. There will be no more 'unnamed sources'. There will be less information available to us, and any information we read will be controlled by the government. We will lose our chance of honest reporting if Big Brother is watching over everything that is said.