I’m surprised it took this long for someone to point fingers at the Chicago Tribune. But The Wall Street Journal this week reported that unnamed sources in U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s office are ticked off because the Trib published a story Dec. 5 revealing that federal investigators had wiretapped Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in a criminal investigation.
The Tribune has already said that it had withheld some information at Fitzgerald’s request, which, Fitzgerald said in a press conference after Blagojevich’s arrest, allowed investigators to get the warrant for the wiretap and place it on the Illinois governor’s phone. In that article Fitzgerald is quoted saying, “I have to take my hat off that the Tribune withheld that story for a substantial period of time, which otherwise might have compromised the investigation from ever happening.”
But now the Journal is reporting that some investigators in the U.S. Attorney’s office would have been happier if the Trib had waited a little longer, just enough to catch Blagojevich actually getting some money, or a favor, or something, in exchange for President-elect Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.
Calls have been trickling in on this, especially as Blagojevich mounts his defense, which so far consists of this: I didn’t actually do anything illegal, I just talked about it. Of course, the feds reply: It’s pretty clear you were fixin’ to break the law. And the unspoken rest of that sentence is, if the Trib had not tipped off you and the rest of the world.
Only in exceptionally rare circumstances should journalists withhold information they know to be of great public interest. The courts have consistently knocked down legal attempts to restrain publication, except when there is an immediate threat to national security, which is pretty tough to demonstrate. Beyond that, you could justify holding information back if it presented a threat to someone’s life (for instance, revealing the identity of a witness that could not be protected), or clearly jeopardized public safety.
It’s actually pretty common for cops to ask reporters to delay publishing information about an investigation in progress. I’m not sure how often reporters actually grant such requests, but I suspect it’s more often than they admit. Sometimes journalists really believe the public is best served by withholding the information. Sometimes they believe they will get better access to information if they comply. (They never do get much of an advantage.) Complicating this is the fact that often, when cops make the request to hold off on revealing information, the journalists aren’t ready to publish anyway because they haven’t confirmed all the facts. Both the journalists and the cops continue with their investigations.
In this case, it looks like the Trib was influenced by Fitzgerald’s request, but it put the needs of its audience first — as it should. Law enforcement can always use more time. Investigators had enough time to place the wiretap and hear the governor talk about breaking the law.
Because journalists and cops have different missions, workable partnerships are problematic. Journalists are watchdogs. Their loyalty is to truth and the audience, and their independence from law enforcement is crucial for credibility. Cops aren’t concerned with disseminating truth as much as they are with ensuring justice.
Here’s a method I recommend:
- When cops ask for restraint, ask for details: Why? How long? What will happen if we do publish? If you get vague answers such as, “It will jeopardize the investigation,” resist.
- Always get a top-level editor involved in the conversation.
- If the cops do convince you it’s absolutely crucial to public safety to delay publication, get a time line. Don’t make unlimited commitments. In Chicago, the Trib agreed to wait, according to Fitzgerald, until the wire was in place, not until a crime was committed.
- Narrow the scope of information you agree to withhold. Often, the very existence of an investigation is not sensitive at all. Instead, it’s a narrow element such as a pending search warrant or an informant that cops want to protect.
- Finally, explain yourself. Tell your audience how and why you made these decisions. Even short asides such as, “We’re not revealing fact X because…” go a long way to educate the public about the role of independent media.
