Releasing reporters from confidentiality

Justice Department officials agreed yesterday to distribute to dozens of federal investigators in the 2001 anthrax case a document they can sign to release journalists from pledges of confidentiality.

  Seattle Post-Intelligencer article

Apparently this is happening because lawyers for Stephen Hatfill, who was listed by investigators as a "person of interest" in the case and is now suing for defamation of character, want to ask reporters questions instead of the investigators who may have leaked Hatfill's name to reporters, since the anthrax case is still open and still being investigated, so they are limited to who is permitted to talk to them. (Yeah, I know, you've forgotten all about the anthrax case.)

It's a bit complex for my blood right now, but I thought the idea of signing a release to allow reporters to discuss confidential information was a rather interesting idea. It derives from the Valerie Plame outing case where investigators can't seem to find any information, so they're putting pressure on reporters to help them out. (Of course, if they'd put some pressure on the White House, they might have solved their case a long time ago.)

The list of those who are to receive the forms includes Ashcroft and Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, as well as numerous FBI agents, postal inspectors and federal prosecutors.

The releases will be accompanied by a letter advising the recipients that signing them is voluntary.

That's a rich, eh?

What it will boil down to is how big a threat (or carrot) can you carry? I mean, let's say for instance, the leaker of the Valerie Plame information was somebody like Karl Rove or John Ashcroft (or one of their whores). If a reporter felt threatened enough by the name behind the leak, he or she would opt to lie or cover for the leaker, rendering the release meaningless. If, on the other hand, the leaker were some small time government employee who did not have the backing of the big guns, then a release would be more likely to result in a reporter turning over the information. Oui?

I mean, if Karl Rove leaked information to a reporter, and then signed a release to let the reporter testify about their conversation, I'm pretty sure the ground rules have already been established. The threat of retaliation, the knowledge of what people in power like Karl Rove can do to you, will be pressure enough. A release would simply be a worthless formality. 'Sure, Novak, go ahead and testify. Just remember who you're talking about, if you get my gist.'

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said it was "ridiculous" to think that waivers sent by the Justice Department to its employees would be viewed as voluntary.

Duh.

"The ultimate result of this," Dalglish said, "will be that in the future, less information will get to the public."

Well, that's pretending that the press gives us information now. So, if it that is what it means, then I guess we can expect a big zilch in the future.