Thursday, June 30, 2005
Standing on principle, but only so far?
Today's news in the Valerie Plame Defenestration Aftermath is that Time Magazine says it will comply with a court order to turn over correspondent Matthew Cooper's notes, apparently thereby revealing the identity of his source and obviating the need to jail him for contempt of the federal court's order that he cooperate with prosecutors. The Supreme Court declined to grant cert a few days ago, foreclosing Time's prospects of reversing the district court.
Cooper evidently was prepared to go to jail rather than reveal his source. According to the Washington Post, "told Reuters that he would rather Time not turn over his notes but acknowledged that the magazine had its own obligations to consider."
Is it not a little odd that Cooper is prepared to disobey a federal court, but not his own employer? If the principle is worth serving time for, might it not also be worth losing his job?
Cooper evidently was prepared to go to jail rather than reveal his source. According to the Washington Post, "told Reuters that he would rather Time not turn over his notes but acknowledged that the magazine had its own obligations to consider."
Is it not a little odd that Cooper is prepared to disobey a federal court, but not his own employer? If the principle is worth serving time for, might it not also be worth losing his job?
Comments:
<< Home
That was at the very beginning. If you don't like to read Robert Novak -- and who does? -- you might well have missed it.
"Although we shall comply with the order to turn over the subpoenaed records, we shall continue to support the protection of confidential sources," the statement continued. "The same constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity."
That's from the Post. Time's decision was corporate, not editorial. Not only do the editors appear to support their reporter's stance, the corporation supports his stance and the principle behind it, as the quote above chose. As I'm inclined to view the corporation's behavior, it is simply cowardly and has to do with Time magazine's owners being in many more businesses besides news publishing, and thus they can better afford to blemish their reputation with their news customers than they can to piss off the goverment, which holds the whole corporation by the throat. Anyway, the reporter was going to jail despite the disclosure and only avoided jail with a surprising declaration at the hearing that he'd cooperate, which he said on NPR was because his source had just called to grant him permission.
Post a Comment
That's from the Post. Time's decision was corporate, not editorial. Not only do the editors appear to support their reporter's stance, the corporation supports his stance and the principle behind it, as the quote above chose. As I'm inclined to view the corporation's behavior, it is simply cowardly and has to do with Time magazine's owners being in many more businesses besides news publishing, and thus they can better afford to blemish their reputation with their news customers than they can to piss off the goverment, which holds the whole corporation by the throat. Anyway, the reporter was going to jail despite the disclosure and only avoided jail with a surprising declaration at the hearing that he'd cooperate, which he said on NPR was because his source had just called to grant him permission.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]