|
|
|
Click here to keep up with Galen's Speaking Schedule
Looking for a back issue of Mullings? They're in the
Archives
Click here
to join the Mullings Movement!
Taking a Look at Leaks
Monday, October 6, 2003
The FALL SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE is here! If you subscribed last Fall (not this past Winter) it's time. If you've never subscribed it's really time. In any event, go to the FALL SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE page and see what it's all about.
Regular MULLINGS readers know that when I enter into discussions of religion or the law, I am quick to point out that I am neither a theologian nor an attorney.
Today, as we talk about who leaked the name of Joseph Wilson's wife, I must add that I am not a journalist. I have never applied for official press credentials with the House or Senate press galleries, the White House, nor any other official agency in Washington.
I was a journalist when I was the news director at WMOA radio in Marietta, Ohio 45750 but that was many moons ago.
Back in the day, I fought the notion of the Marietta PD issuing press credentials on two grounds: (1) I didn't think that the public authorities should decide who could cover them and who couldn't, and (2) There were only two reporters who regularly covered city hall, so the cops should have been able to recognize us, credentials or no.
I also pointed to that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press �
I am no longer a journalist. I am a political hack with a knack for usage.
Dear Mr. Mullings: Is this going somewhere, or what?
Signed, Howell Raines
The current to-do in Washington about THE LEAK is shining some light on the way journalism is done in this town.
In his front page piece on the subject of reporters' use of unnamed sources in yesterday's Washington Post, media reporter Howard Kurtz quoted "one official who asked not to be identified because of the [Wilson] case's sensitivity."
Which falls somewhere between ironic and hilarious.
Reporters always give their sources high-sounding titles like a "confidential" or "anonymous" source. Kurtz did not identify the person as "one leaker who asked not to be identified �"
It is not difficult to imagine an overzealous prosecutor issuing subpoenas to force reporters into revealing their sources which would have the obvious effect of intimidating future sources into silence.
According to the Kurtz piece, the US Justice Department has very strict rules about issuing subpoenas for reporters' information, including this:
"All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources before considering issuing a subpoena to a member of the news media."
For their part, reporters permit anonymity to be the first, not the final, offer.
In the olden days, I often had spirited discussions with reporters about whether something I was about to say would be "on the record" (where I would be identified as, for example, the communications director for Speaker Gingrich's political shop) or "on background" (where I might be identified as "a source close to the House Leadership").
Now, when I ask if I can go on background, the answer is always "sure."
On the one hand, reporters want a story. On the other, sources want to be able to go to a dinner party and do their wink-wink-nudge-nudge routine over cocktails, letting other insiders know that THEY were the source of some anonymous quote.
If, in the above example, I had been referred to as "a leaker close to the House Leadership" I might not have been so quick to save the clippings.
Journalists suggest they should have the same protections as lawyers, doctors and clergy. However, there are very few occasions where life, liberty, or property are in a degree of peril which can only be mitigated by speed dialing your favorite reporter with an anonymous tip.
Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism (quoted on the record by Kurtz) said, "Ninety-five percent of the time, people are basically dropping a dime on other people, dissing other people, leaking from base motives."
"Gossip," would be the word for which the dean was searching.
The U.S. Constitution checks-and-balances the rights of our citizens against the needs of our government.
As a society we have conferred upon an entire, self-appointed, class of people - journalists - the unchecked right to decide, on its own, what is and what is not in the public interest.
As the old saying goes, "Who's watching the watchers?"
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A link to the Howard Kurtz Wash Post piece; an interesting Mullfoto and a terrific Catchy Caption of the Day!
--END --
Copyright © 2003 Richard A. Galen
Current Issue |
Secret Decoder
Ring | Past
Issues | Email
Rich | Rich
Who?
Copyright �2002 Richard
A. Galen | Site design by Campaign
Solutions. | |
|
� 
