Rove is not a "source" by any definition, so this whole drama over a journalist's "confidential source" is another bushco production, just slight of hand to get the focus off of what we should be paying attention to: what Rove did and get us arguing about journalism, confidentiality, and sources.
This whole episode is being spun on the basis that Rove was someone's "source"! He didn't expose a story of public concern, illegal activity, or vital national interest on behalf of the public. He leaked highly sensitive, classified, confidential information that damaged our vital national interest. He's not a source, he's a criminal and a traitor.
We're not talking about protecting a "whitleblower" who is exposing criminal activity, we're talking about someone perpetrating a criminal act by using the press, or, as remains to be seen, with the complicity of the press.
If I called or emailed a reporter, said I committed a crime, or wanted to commit a crime, say homicide (or maybe treason), told them how I did it and where the evidence was, and gave them my name, address and phone number, you think that reporter has an obligation to protect my identity? No way, just the opposite, he has an obligation to report it to the authorities. Even better, if I contacted a reporter and said "publish this and so and so will die", you think I'm a source? There is no legal or ethical protection for someone who is committing a felony!
I am an ordinary citizen in the field of journalism, but a professional in real estate. I'm held to a higher level of conduct in any real estate transaction, even a personal one, because of my knowledge. Journalists, as experts in their field, know what they can or cannot publish, know what is against the law, civil or criminal. There is no confidentiality protection for criminals, in the medical profession, legal professions nor in journalism.
In 1972 the Supreme Court said that journalists have no protection if they are aware of the commission of a felony.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-sources6feb06,0,6080347.story?coll=la-su
nday-commentary
"......., if the confidential information relates to criminal activity, the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1972 (in Branzburg vs. Hayes) that should a grand jury investigating the crime need the information, the journalist must turn it over -- despite the freedom of the press guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.
No reporter can enter into an agreement that violates that law. Rather, an agreement of confidentiality is subject to it. The so-called news person's privilege, just like the attorney-client privilege or a president's executive privilege, is a qualified privilege. When a judge holds a reporter in contempt for violating the law, that judge is merely upholding the law of the land."
I refer you to the NY Times Confidential News Source Policy: http://www.nytco.com/company-properties-times-sources.html
Confidential News Sources
February 25, 2004
<snip>
Principles for Granting Anonymity
The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation -- as much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point of view on the issue under discussion.
<snip>
Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source -- in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.
In any situation when we cite anonymous sources, at least some readers may suspect that the newspaper is being used to convey tainted information or special pleading. If the impetus for anonymity has originated with the source, further reporting is essential to satisfy the reporter and the reader that the paper has sought the whole story.
<snip>
Confidential sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us -- or they must be the authorized representatives of an authority, known to us, who has such knowledge.
<snip>
We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.
<snip>
Forms of Attribution to Confidential Sources
When we agree to anonymity, the reporter's duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability. We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials. We should not use blind attribution -- "sources said," for example -- which is more a tease than a signpost. Attribution should never amount to a truism: since "source" merely means a provider of information, "one source said" is equivalent to "somebody said." And "informed" or "reliable source" is no improvement. <snip>
We should avoid automatic references to sources who "insisted on anonymity" or "demanded anonymity"; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives.
<snip>
Multiple Anonymous Sources
When we grant anonymity, we do not necessarily require multiple sources. A cabinet official, for example, or the White House adviser on national security, may require anonymity while conveying a policy decision that is clearly "authorized," necessitating no corroborating source.
But when we grant anonymity for less verifiable assertions -- especially if they form a disputed account, or are potentially damaging to one side in a court case, for example -- corroborating sources are often necessary. The reporter should confer with the department head or senior deputy to agree upon the need and the number.
In such a case, the reporter and editor must be satisfied that the sources are genuinely independent of one another, not connected behind the scenes in any kind of "echo chamber" that negates the value of a cross-check.
And the Ethics Project of Radio-Television News Directors Association http://www.rtnda.org/ethics/confidential.shtml
Remember "ethics"? Seems like Rove, Cooper, Miller and Novak forgot about "ethics". But that's to be expected when, from the top down, an entire administration is corrupt and unethical.
<snip>
Fulfill all of the following four criteria, then consider the other questions listed below.
A story that uses confidential sources should be of overwhelming public concern. (Plame's name was of overwhelming public concern?)
Before using an unnamed source, you must be convinced there is no other way to get the essential information on the record.
The unnamed source must have verifiable knowledge of the story. Even if the source cannot be named, the information must be proven true.
You should be willing to reveal to the public why the source cannot be named and what, if any promises the news organization made in order to get the information.
<snip>
How would viewers/listeners evaluate the same information if they knew the source's name and motivations?
Have we gotten so used to being lied to and manipulated that we don't see the obvious anymore, even when it's right in our face? What ever happened to logic, critical thinking, and analysis?
So all these reporters hollering "protecting my source" about Rove are actually aiding and abetting a criminal act (Cooper?), obstructing justice (Miller?), and may even be considered co-conspirators (Novak?).
What ever happened to logic, critical thinking, and analysis?