Several months ago, the conservative columnist and pundit Robert Novak gave a speech in Madison as part of the University’s Distinguished Lecture Series. Resigned to walking with a considerable limp and a cane after breaking his hip a month earlier, Novak was nonetheless vibrant and vivacious in denouncing John Kerry and the Democratic Party.
After criticizing the Democratic Party for its handling of the 2004 elections and lauding Karl Rove and company for their decisive victory in the presidential election, a question-and-answer session ensued.
To be quite honest, I had been gearing up for Novak since I saw the flier announcing his arrival date. It wasn’t that I wanted to appreciate distinguished commentary from a seasoned political journalist; I read Novak’s column every week, and the right-wing curmudgeon and I agree on almost nothing. I went to the lecture specifically hoping to admonish Novak regarding his involvement in a federal court case that threatened to imprison two journalists for not revealing their sources.
In 2003, Novak published an opinion piece detailing how Valerie Plame, a surreptitious CIA officer, allegedly secured a position for her husband to travel to Niger and personally assess intelligence claiming that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase a form of uranium to create nuclear weapons. Plame’s husband Joseph Wilson wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times eight days earlier condemning the Bush administration for relying on erroneous intelligence in making its case to go to war in Iraq.
While Novak claimed that he received his information from “two senior administration officials,” he has never been subpoenaed in a federal court case that seeks to punish the sources of Novak’s scoop. Rather, New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Andrew Cooper, who both had knowledge of Plame’s identity from concealed sources, were subpoenaed and subsequently refused to divulge the identities of their confidential sources.
While I will refrain from bombarding you with legal minutia, Miller and Cooper’s defense was premised on the idea that the First Amendment allows them the constitutional right to protect their sources from grand jury subpoenas. The Amendment that harbors, protects and allows the press to serve its fundamental role of governmental watchdog should act as natural and necessary safeguard in this particular situation.
Yet, a circuit federal appeals court dismissed this reasoning, claiming that journalists have absolutely no constitutional right to be free from testifying before a grand jury. Citing the landmark Supreme Court case of Branzburg v Hayes, which invalidated the use of a First Amendment defense for reporters summoned to testify, the court ruled that Miller and Cooper should be held in contempt and sentenced them both to 18 months in a federal prison.
In effect, the court declared that the prosecutor’s interest of discerning the identity of the loquacious source was more important than any interest the reporters could have in protecting their sources. While little has been made about this judicial interpretation, this bold declaration severely threatens to undermine one of the most significant roles of the press.
Journalists are dependent on confidential sources to provide them with critical information that could not otherwise be disclosed if a source’s identity was publicized. Much of this information plays an invaluable role in informing the American public about issues that, while highly sensitive, are pertinent to maintaining our fragile democracy. Confidential sources entrust journalists with not divulging their identities and in return, deliver information to journalists that could not be gained elsewhere. The recent judgment by the federal circuit court involving Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper severely threatens the relationship of journalists and confidential sources.
After Novak spoke, I walked up to the microphone and waited my turn to rant and rave about his credibility as a journalist and his lack of dignity as a human being. Yet, while those thoughts were rummaging through my mind, they never escaped my lips. I didn’t have the balls or gall to ask him what I had waited so patiently to say, instead asking him a question about the deficit. Angry and perturbed as I sat down, I felt a wave of relief pass over me as someone asked a question about Novak’s involvement in the pending case. Though he brushed them off and glared at them repeatedly, even after the questionnaire had sat down, at least one journalist had the fortitude to sift and winnow an old scoundral who has neglected the profession that has defined his life.
Josh Moskowitz ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
