I met Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine only once. It was June 2000, and I'd just quit Forbes, where I was a senior editor, after the magazine had begun negotiating a deal with federal prosecutors to compel me to testify before a grand jury and at trial, which was something I refused to do.
The story that got me into trouble involved The New York Times, which, along with Time, has been fighting to keep one of its own out of jail for refusing to reveal confidential sources. I'd tracked down some hackers who'd penetrated The New York Times website and replaced the day's news with obscenity-laced content of their own, then I wrote a feature titled "We Were Long Gone When He Pulled the Plug" (registration required). Naturally, the Department of Justice wanted me to divulge my sources.
Media Hack
In his office with its towering view of midtown Manhattan, Pearlstine boasted that if I'd been writing for Time or Fortune, or any other Time Inc. publication, he would have backed me all the way to the Supreme Court. "We take the First Amendment very seriously around here," he said.
I couldn't help but recall this conversation when Pearlstine announced last week that Time Inc. would comply with a court order to hand over subpoenaed records to a special prosecutor and grand jury looking into the Valerie Plame affair. Pearlstine, who in a June 30 memo to Time staffers called it "the most difficult decision" he has "made in more than 36 years in the news business," was forced to act when the Supreme Court decided not to review a lower court ruling that held the reporters in contempt.
It would be easy to slam Pearlstine for caving in to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. But I believe Pearlstine is a man of his word. He would have backed me to the Supreme Court. What he didn't say was that if the Supreme Court declined to get involved, he might have had to rethink his pledge.
That's probably being unfair. I have no doubt that lawyer-turned-journalist Pearlstine, who is the kind of guy who could whip you in a debate even if he were dead wrong, wrenched over the decision. It couldn't have been easy choosing between saving Time Inc. potentially millions of dollars in fines (and incurring the wrath of shareholders) and ensuring that no worthy confidential source would ever again trust the word of a Time reporter. Mark my words, Pearlstine is well aware of this.
Even if he weren't, he wouldn't have to look far to be reminded. For instance, Ed Stein, a cartoonist for Rocky Mountain News, did a send up of Time with a magazine he called "Tame." The cover story: "Why we betrayed journalistic tradition and revealed our confidential sources."
Interestingly, Pearlstine also made the strongest argument against Time cooperating with prosecutors when he wrote that the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the issue "limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society. It may also encourage excesses by overzealous prosecutors."
But Pearlstine only inherited this mess. Others share much more blame for this sordid affair, which has pit the executive branch against the Fourth Estate via the judicial branch.
The first (obvious choice) to come to mind would be the person (Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or one of their minions?) who leaked the fact that Valerie Plame, wife of former diplomat-turned-Bush-basher Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA. Then there's crusty Robert Novak, who published this scoop in a column, yet seems to have avoided the threat of prison -- unlike Time's Matthew Cooper, who agreed to testify when his source suddenly consented, or Judith Miller of The New York Times, who chose prison over revealing her source. Perhaps Novak concluded that as an opinion columnist with a shrill political agenda, he doesn't actually qualify as a journalist.
Finally there is prosecutor Fitzgerald, who has placed himself on the front lines in this administration's war against the press, doling out subpoenas to journalists like they were Evites to a barbecue. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press -- and that, I would argue, means ensuring that reporters can protect the identity of confidential sources -- Fitzgerald believes that journalists don't have the right to promise confidentiality. This is something the courts have backed him on.
Yet our whole business is predicated on convincing sources to talk to us and in return to count on our protection if things get hairy. This is what Pearlstein means when he talks of a "chilling effect."
But do you know who deserves most of the blame?
We do. And by that, I mean journalists.
There's a reason public reaction to all this has been so muted. Frankly, many (if not most) Americans don't believe us anymore. An annual Gallup survey released last month found that trust in newspapers and television news is at an all-time low. Only big business, Congress and HMOs were lower. We have diluted the importance of confidential sourcing by abusing it. While some have faked their way through their careers -- New York Times' Jayson Blair, USA Today's Jack Kelley, The New Republic's Stephen Glass -- others too lazy to dig for on-the-record material have used anonymous sources as a crutch or to push their own agendas.
When people think of TV news, they think of Michael Jackson and Robert Blake-saturated coverage. When they think of newspapers or magazines ... come to think of it, they probably don't think of newspapers or magazines.
Is it any wonder many Americans agree with Fitzgerald and Pearlstine that journalists shouldn't be above the law, especially when issues of national security are at stake? We have squandered our hallowed place in society.
In every crisis, however, there is opportunity. Media organizations might consider the promise of protecting confidential sources as a competitive advantage, with publications like The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle -- whose executive vice president and editor, Phil Bronstein, has said that the paper won't turn over confidential sources -- getting the best scoops.
Because if you were a whistleblower, with whom would you rather deal: Time or The Times?
- - -
- Adam L. Penenberg is an assistant professor at New York University and the assistant director of the Business and Economic Reporting program in the department of journalism.*
