Can Reporters Committ Treason By Doing Their Jobs?

It was an incendiary news report about a top-secret government eavesdropping program that sparked punitive legislation from Congress and calls for treason prosecution from admintration officials.

But, as University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley noted a month ago in a letter to U.S. House members, government officials in 1986 eventually got over an NBC report that an accused spy may have tipped the Soviets to a submarine-based listening effort and stories on intercepts of Libyan government communications.

Back then, CIA director William Casey wanted to prosecute news organizations for treason and U.S. Sen. Ted "bridge to nowhere" Stevens wanted to pass a law requiring those convicted of espionage to forfeit all property tied to the crime -- meaning news outlets found guilty might have to surrender their businesses to the government.

And now that least one Congressman has called for the New York Times to be prosecuted on charges of treason -- just one month after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to rule out such a prosecution for the newspaper's revelations on domestic spying by the National Security Agency -- Kirtley wonders if we have not traveled back to the future in a striking way.

"It's kind of spooky that almost exactly 20 years ago this happened...(and) although the espionage laws have never been used to prosecute the press (in America), that's not to say someone, somewhere, might not try," she said. "And if we are going to allow the prosecution of the press for publication of certain facts, what we've done is create an official Secrets Act. I have to think that criminalizing certain types of information is not what the founders of this country had in mind."

But in the wake of stories last week in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times detailing a global effort to track terrorist funds, some politicians and pundits were advocating exactly that -- with the New York Times taking the brunt of criticism as the lead news organization in reporting the story and for its perceived history as a symbol of liberal news bias.

"The New York Times Just Doesn't Give a Damn About National Security" read the headline on a dispatch from the conservative Media Research Center advocating the Times be prosecuted for treason. Republican U.S. Rep. Peter King -- who once accused the Times of colluding with then-Presidential candidate John Kerry to bolster his arguments against the Iraq war -- said the newspaper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people." Even local radio personality Tedd Webb advocated charging "anybody who derails a top secret government program designed to protect us" with treasion and executing them.

Administration officials from President Bush to vice president Dick Cheney and outgoing treasury secretary John Snow have all condomned the stories, saying their publication has reduced the program's effectiveness. In a letter to readers Sunday, Times editor Bill Keller noted the newspaper had consulted with administration officials for weeks, considering their pleas that they hold the story, ultimately concluding "our default position -- our job -- is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair nd accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or report fully enough."

Strip away the election-year posturing and partisan catcalls, and you find a tension Kirtley said has always existed between government, which works to keep its secrets, and the press, which seeks to expose them. One question that surfaces -- as government officials and supporters ratchet up the criticism of news organizations which reported the banking story, do they run the risk of permanently hampering independent reporting on national security issues?

It's one thing to say the Times should have respected national security enough to hold a story on a program which seems legal, if invasive. It's another to say they should face criminal charges for making the decision to publish. But in the ever-heated national debate on these issues, the two positions are growing tougher to distinguish.

"One of the things the government has worked hard at doing is convincing people the press is irrelevant at best and at worst is the enemy," she said, noting some called for the Chicago Tribune to be prosecuted when it revealed that allies had cracked a Japanese cipher code in World War II. "The question is: Who decides what information should be kept secret? Are you going to take Dick Cheney at his word, or are you going to want to find out for yourself?"

But reporters thought they had a legal right to keep confidential sources secret, until a series of court decisions winnowed away that priviledge at the federal level. And though the war on terror is conflict with no clear end or defined conclusion -- will every terrorist who wants America destroyed ever be vanquished? -- arguments that rules of reporting should be different at a time of war carry weight with some people.

Still, when I searched Google on the terms "journalism" and "treason," the countries which surfaced read like a who's who of media oppression: China, Russia, Ethiopia, Peru. (Times business reporter Kris Hundley had a moving story Sunday on a Chinese man whose speech to western media earned him a beating which took away his ability to walk). Is this the tradition of press freedom America should be emulating?

"I find it very distressing when folks don't seem to recognize the importance on an independent media," said Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press. "I've got this notion that somebody should keep an eye on what government is doing -- and that job falls to the press."

New Website for local Fox affiliate WTVT-Ch. 13

For many long years, local Fox affiliate WTVT-Ch. 13 has offered a web site a step behind other area Tv stations. But that will change soon, with the debut of a redesigned site in line with the company's goal of developing a souped-up, common style for web pages of every station. With the URL myfoxtampabay.com, the new site offers a greater mix of news stories and features -- still in beta testing...

Comments

[mr cynical (formerly mr anonymous)]

i wouldnt want to take on the role of defending the republican yahoos calling the press treasonous, but one obvious question does occur:now that we, the people, know the govt is following the money, so what?is anyone really surprised? didnt the government kind of say it would be tracking the flow of money to terrorist orgs right from the get-go?isnt that what got sami al-arian's tit in the wringer?this story seems like an expose for the sake of expose. no one from bin laden on down can profess to be too shocked.so why the brouhaha?

[Anonymous]

I think this blog is fascinating. We are fortunate to have journalists like you and others willing to risk controversy to keep our government honest.(Rather, to try and get our government to be honest.)

[Mr. Gator]

Anons,You all can't handle honesty.

[Clark]

What really cracks me up about this situation is that, first of all, it confirms the very type of activity that we've always suspected the government of being able to do anyway (apart from watching us through our cable TV). Second, people reveal a lot about their personality when they get upset over something they think shouldn't be published. Lastly, the people who love to criticize papers the most (namely Jack Harris) get downright giddy whenever their names are in print!

[bluegraswriter]

If the Bushies believe that having news of the financial surveillance (or the warrantless wiretapping) program appear in print is what tipped off the terrorist, then it makes sense we're in such a mess. They are stupid. It should be assumed that the terrorist know their phone calls are being monitored and money trail being followed. It's the first things that should be done when trying to track someone.And, there should be no prohibition on what the NYT, LAT, WSJ or others write about this. The public should know what the government is doing in our name. Secrecy will always bite you on the ass.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows the press largely consists of socialist-leaning-do-gooders who resent American success and power. Is this particular story a big security breach? Probably not. But I'm all for anything that calls these America-hating pinkos to task.Speaking of the pinko press, how do you justify the reporting on the redistricting case? The left got smacked down. They lost on virtually every point. But sure enough, there's an AP article titled "Supreme court nixes parts of Texas redistricting." Reading the article, you would think the Democrats won the case! In reality, all of there major contentions were dismissed and the Republican boundaries were upheld in all but a single county.This follows yesterdays phony headline regarding algore's movie. That headline bluntly proclaimed that scientists agree with the claims made in algores movie. But when you read the story, you find that MOST of those questioned hadn't even seen the movie, and only 1 or 2 "scientists" (both with a vested interest in global warming) are cited.I say lock them all up. If not because they're treasonous, then just because they're liberal liars who spin the news on a daily basis.

[bluegrasswriter]

I love anonymous people who feel so sure of themselves and their beliefs that they call people names and don't have the decency to at least give their own.As for the media being left-leaning, america-hating pinkos, you obviously haven't set foot in a newsroom in your life. :)

[Anonymous]

Ummm, my name is Mike. Sorry your momma named you bluegrasswriter. No wonder you're a bitter hippie...

[bluegrasswriter]

Hi Mike,the name's brett (I apparently deleted that in writing and rewriting part of my last post). not a bitter hippie, just someone who doesn't believe that the press is driven by sinister motives, particularly in this case. Nobody says you have to like what they write, but there's that little thing called the constitution and the first amendment. They've got the right to write it and I'm damned glad that they do.Now, can someone explain to me how the disclosure that swift responded to subpoenas is hurting the effort to catch terrorists? And, it seems this worry about catching terrorists pops up at convenient times. Not really buying it, given that bin laden, mullah omar and their top lieutenants are still free.But, that's just my opinion....

[Clark]

Hi Mike (aka Anonymous)! My name is Clark. You sound like you take all your cues from Rush (aka Viagra), especially that overused "algore" tweak. Why don't you get some original thoughts of your own! You're exactly the kind of (bleep)face that would complain just as much if you found out the press was on to a story and DID NOT report it. You can't have it both ways. Quit trying to kill the messenger, or put him in prison for treason, as these aren't original thoughts either.

[bluegrasswriter]

Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion and the right to express it. the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to an informed opinion, though, and nor should it.I may disagree with anonymous (aka mike), but its better to let the nonsense out in the open to be heard than it is to bottle it up.Now, as for the NYT, WSJ and LAT, (the original topic here), what they did was good journalism. it's built in to the relationship that the government and the press will be adversaries at many, many turns, and that's a good thing. If newspapers and television reported only what the government wanted, richard nixon would have been elected dictator....

[Khan of the Wastelands]

I may disagree with anonymous (aka mike), but its better to let the nonsense out in the open to be heard than it is to bottle it up.I heartily agree. It's better to shed light on a fascist than allow him to hide in the dark corners like a cockroach.Not that I think anyone who doesn't think the way I do is a cockroach, but anyone who thinks we should lock up another person for having differing political views IS a cockroach.So Mike, post your goofy views away. You only drive those of us in the center further away from voting for the Republican party with every hateful word you write.I voted (R) in every election until this last presidential election. That includes the FIRST time Bush ran.People like "Mike" have forced me to start voting (D).SOMEONE has to bring some sanity to this country......