The Silencing of Jim Taricani, and hence, the media itself

There's an article by Paul K. McMasters in my local Sunday paper that I really wish I could find online or via Lexis/Nexis and quote the whole thing, because I don't have time to type it all out right now. But, alas... I'll type out what I can.

Most of you haven't heard of Jim Taricani. For me, he's our local TV news investigative reporter, and he's pretty good at what he does. A few years ago during former Providence Mayor Buddy Cianci's federal trial, someone (presumably from the government) leaked am FBI videotape to Taricani. This tape showed Cianci's number one man, Frank Corrente, taking a bribe from an undercover FBI agent. This tape was only supposed to be shown in court, and it wasn't allowed to be shown before the trial, so instead of trying to investigate who leaked the tape, our government instead tried to shake down Taricani to get him to admit who his source was.

Well, Taricani won't budge. And now he's very likely going to goto jail for protecting his sources.

Paul K. McMasters, who is the "First Amendment ombudsman at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.," has an article discussing just how scary this is to our notion of constitutionally protected freedom of the press, and how if the government is successful in suing the press for daring to use anonymous sources, then the press will become nothig but a mouthpiece of the government. (And if you listen closely in the distance, you'll hear conspiracy bufs screaming, "ISN'T THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS?!," after reading that last line.)

Who can blame federal prosecutors for trying to convert journalist into their personal snitches? For the prosecutors, demanding that journalists burn their confidential sources is invariably a winning proposition.

It doesn't work out that well for journalists -- or the public.

Just ask TV newsman Jim Taricani. A special prosecutor ordered the Providence journalist to reveal who gave him an FBI video-surveillance tape showing a city official taking a bribe. Taricani refused and earlier this month was convicted of criminal contempt.

So Taricani, who committed no crime, who did not encourage anyone else to commit a crime, and who in fact has made a career out of reporting on crime, corruption and the mob, is going to jail. He'll find out for how long at his sentencing on Dec. 9.

[snip]

If reporters refuse to give up their sources or to cooperate, the resulting legal battle sidelines reporters covering the cases and saddles their employers with huge costs in time and resources. In the end, they may pay heavy fines and wind up in jail anyway.

Under these circumstances, why would journalists go to such great lengths to protect their sources? It's not all that complicated. Journalists see it as their constitutional duty to provide an other-than-government source of information about matters of public import.

They understand that turning over to prosecutors and courts the names of people they have pledged to protect will dry up valuable sources of information for the public.

More important, if the press comes to be known as an arm of law enforcement, its constitutional role is compromised beyond repair.

Let that last sentence settle in your mind for a while if you don't immediately understand the consequences of it. Now onto the government's strategy with cases like Taricani's against the media as a whole.

So the question becomes: why would prosecutors go after journalists when they have at their disposal a large force of investigators armed wih badges and guns and an arsenal of legal powers such as subpoenas, warrants, wiretaps and computer tracking technology? Their job is to go after the bad guys, of course. But sometimes they decide it's more convenient to tap the investigative talents of experienced journalists. There is also the added benefit that when investigations are not going well, prosecuting journaliss provides a nice diversion.

At one time, federal prosecutors appeared to try harder to avoid infringing on the First Amendment rights of the press any more than necessary. That deference appears to have disintegrated.

The Justice Department no longer adheres as closely to strict guidelines on interference with the press. It has subpoenaed reporters' telephone and work records, sometimes without properly notifying the reporters. This has allowed federal officials to paw through all the journalists' contacts ina ddition to the targeted material. The FBI has intercepted reporters' mail, in one instance holding the contents, a 9-year-old unclassified report, for months and thus delaing an investigative report on the war on terrorism.

It's beginning to look a lot like 1984, ennndless ennndless war... - Jello Biafra.

Unless some balance between these two institutions is restored, more and more of the stories in the morning newspaper or on the nightly news will require a government stamp of approval. One does not have to dislike or distrust government officials to know that this is very bad for a democratic tradition and an open society.

When the press is prevented from independently investigating and reporting directly to the people, without intimidation or interference, the public is denied its proper oversight role as both judge and jury of the law enforcement and judicial systems.

How many journalists have to go to jail before prosecutors, judges, and American citizens recognize that public justice and an independent press are not mutually exclusive?

Indeed.