"Kind Of" Confidentiality?
(A silhouette of a man is visible next to a support pillar. The embers from his cigarette illuminate his face. He wears a trenchcoat and speaks softly to the young man who approaches him.)
Deep Throat: Follow the money.
Woodward: Wait.
Deep Throat: Follow the money.
Woodward: No, I hear you loud and clear. I just have some paperwork I need to go over with you. See, my newspaper has different degrees of the anonymity I can give to you. There's full anonymity. Then there's 'confidential' status. Then there's a …
Deep Throat: I'm not applying for an HMO, Woodward.
FADE TO BLACK
Think this is a stretch? Maybe not. The upcoming issue of American Journalism Review takes a deeper look at how newspapers are protecting – or, more accurately, guarding to a point – whistleblowers that try to alert the public to abuses of power.
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a speech last October at the University of Michigan, said: "I know a few reporters who now make a habit, after learning what the source knows and before writing a story, of negotiating a kind of verbal contract. It may go something like this: 'I will keep your name out of the paper, and if I am subpoenaed as part of a leak investigation my paper will fight it. But if we lose in the courts, I do not plan to go to jail or allow the paper to be fined into bankruptcy.'"It is often joked that you can't be "kind of pregnant." But the journalism business seems to be implementing new policies that grant whistleblowers a "kind of confidentiality." With the Valerie Plame story in America's collective rear-view mirror -- and the partisan shouting that tainted the issue quieted -- it's time for America and for the media to decide where we stand on confidential sources and anonymity.
From BALCO to Valerie Plame to Deep Throat, anonymity is an issue that's captured in America's mind in anecdotes. Giving sources confidentiality is a tough call, partly because of the vagueness and partly because of the free-wheeling nature with which the media currently uses "a source close to [x] who insisted on anonymity because [excuse]." (We had numerous examples in the Ashcroft image rehab stories earlier this week.)
As far as this writer is concerned, if a reporter can come about information from any other place, without granting someone confidentiality, he or she should do so. Also, if a source's information ends up being false or misleading, then the confidentiality agreement ends there. But if there is something truly newsworthy – and that's the most subjective part – then there shouldn't be conditions involved.
Reporters should also keep in mind that the most crucial stories – ones involving corruption in very high places and those involved with national security issues – are the ones that are going to be the most contested. If you get into the ring, you need to be ready to go the distance. Although I'll admit that's a lot easier to say in theory than when you're facing the prospect of jail.
Harry Truman once said that "When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."
If a reporter tells a source that he or she will protect him -- but only to a point -- then Truman's concern will be borne out.