By Jack Fuller
I’ve got something for you. But you didn’t hear it from me, alright?Sometimes reporters hide the most important fact in a news story. And other reporters are in on the game.
The revelation by Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff of the original source of information blowing the cover of a CIA agent has provided a stark example of a dirty little secret of news-media behavior.
Not only do reporters offer to keep sources’ identities secret in return for information, but other reporters almost never do what Isikoff did–reveal competitors’ sources–even when going public with the identity would change the very meaning of the story.
Isikoff’s revelation did just that.
Three years ago syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that Valerie Plame,wife of a man who had publicly attacked the Bush administration’s Iraq policy,worked for the CIA. A scandal quickly ensued. Somebody in the administration,it seemed, had leaked the information about Plame in order to get back at her husband.
Under pressure, the Bush administration appointed Chicago U.S. Atty.Patrick Fitzgerald to lead a criminal investigation into the leak. Then came subpoenas to reporters. Then a refusal by a New York Times reporter to honor the subpoena, resulting in a prison stay for contempt of court.
Isikoff reported in Newsweek (and in a new book co-authored by journalist David Corn) that it was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who told Novak of Plame’s CIA employment. Armitage is not considered one of the administration’s attack dogs. The premise that the administration was willing to give up a spy for narrow, vindictive political ends fell apart.
Incredibly, it took three years for the story to get out. Either theinvestigative reporters in Washington aren’t very good or they weren’t really trying.
Journalists argue that they have to promise some sources they will keep their identities confidential in order to get them to pass along hidden facts that the public needs to know in order to understand important matters.
Though some reporters make the promise by reflex, in general the practicedoes significantly increase the amount of useful information the public receives. The reporting technique may be overused, but it is completely justified.
But does it follow that other reporters should honor their competitors’ promises?
A reporter’s whole professional purpose is to reveal information that has significance to the public. In the absence of a compelling reason not to, a reporter should make important facts public, not hide them.
The best argument for protecting the anonymous sources of other journalists is that anything that makes a potential leaker less sure his identity will be kept confidential will, in the long run, impede the flow of information.
That becomes untenable, though, when a major public debate warps because the public does not know the truth about who leaked a piece of information. The strategic leaking of information by the government and its critics is so widespread that it has become central to the political process. But because journalists very rarely examine it (and even then their searchlight is usually dim), they are not presenting a complete picture of the way politics works.
This is not to say that every time some reporter uses an anonymous source,others should try to out the leaker. That would be a waste of time and would chill disclosure without offsetting social value.
But reporters should try to reveal the identities of competitors’ sources when the disclosure would significantly add to public understanding. The unwritten journalistic rule against this needs to be repealed.
Isikoff has worked close to controversy before. He tried to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal but was thwarted by his editors, only to be scooped by Internet sensationalist Matt Drudge. He wrote a Newsweek item, later retracted, that U.S. interrogators had tried to shake up terror suspects by flushing a copy of the Koran down a toilet.
In this case he violated the unspoken code of his craft–and did both the public and his craft a great service.
