Poynter Online
Go


Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
Most Recent Articles
1.Poynter's Times Publishing Co. sells Governing
5:15 PM Nov. 20, 2009
2.Recommendation for Fewer PAP Screens Sure to Set Off Controversy
10:32 AM Nov. 20, 2009
3.Gene Patterson to Jack Nelson: Save Us a Desk Up There in That Celestial Newsroom
7:03 AM Nov. 20, 2009
4.Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
6:19 AM Nov. 20, 2009
5.Woods: Plagiarism Never Justified
3:47 PM Nov. 19, 2009
Most E-mailed
Recent Comments
Recent Tags
Community Activity

Poynter Training
Poynter Seminars
Small, in-person training experiences.
1.
A New Curriculum for a New Journalism - Jan. 6-8, 2010
Apply by November 23
2.
Multimedia Journalism for College Educators - February 1-5, 2010
Apply by December 14
3.
NewsU: Write Your Heart Out: The Craft of the Personal Essay - January 25-February 19, 2010
Apply by January 4
News University
Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists.
Webinars
Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more.
All Webinars

Poynter Forums

View Forum Post

Topic: Miscellaneous items
Date/Time: 6/27/2005 11:03:38 AM
Title: Time Inc. on Supreme Court's 6/27 decision
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
 
Time Inc. Statement re: Matt Cooper Case -- June 27, 2005

We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined to hear the important issues presented by Matthew Cooper and Time Inc. v. United States of America.

It is important to know whether the First Amendment and the federal common law provide protection for journalists’ confidential sources, as do the laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia.

We and Matt Cooper shall now seek a prompt hearing from the federal district court that first held us in civil contempt. We shall ask Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan to reassess the privilege issues. We believe that changes in the status of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation and intervening guidance from the Court of Appeals on evidentiary privileges under federal common law merit such a reassessment.

Statements from the Special Counsel’s office suggest his investigation has changed substantially since last summer, when he presented secret evidence to the district court. There is reason to believe, for example, that the Special Counsel may have determined that disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity to Robert Novak did not violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If that is correct, his desire to know the sources for a subsequent article by Mr. Cooper and others, that appeared on Time.com, may be solely related to an investigation into whether witnesses made false statements during the course of his investigation into this non-crime. Such an investigation of obstruction of justice or perjury may not rise to the level that justifies disclosure of information from or about a reporter’s confidential sources under federal common law.

Under these circumstances, where the facts appear to have changed and where the appeals court has since elaborated on a reporter’s privilege under common law, Time Inc. and Matt Cooper will ask the District Court to review and reassess its orders.

We think it premature for Time Inc. and Matt Cooper to articulate final positions until Judge Hogan has ruled on our request for review and reassessment.

View Complete Forum Topic

Username
Password
New User? Signup Now
Poynter Careers
See All Jobs
Add Your Resume
Post Your Job
Become a Member
More media jobs