Fire Norm Pearlstine NOW!

The editor of Time disgraced his magazine today. He is a traitor to the profession. A vital profession to our democracy.

His superiors have a moral obligation to fire him immediately, to apologize to past present and future whistleblowers everywhere and to assure them that this was an isolated incident by a turncoat among us, and will not be repeated.

I have been a journalist for several years. Anyone in our business understands that many of the really sensitive stories--often the most important stories--only see the light of print because whistleblowers have seen a united front of reporters willing to go to jail to protect them. One major break in our ranks, and whistleblowers lose confidence in ALL OF US.

If you have not been an investigative reporter, I don't think you can imagine how hard it is to get a nervous source to trust you, sometimes.

I was in the middle of a large public controversy once, in the middle of the Columbine frenY. I got leaks to Eric Harris's diary and the info that the Christian martyr Cassie Bernall's story was a myth. Man, did that blow up. The Jeffco Sheriff publicly called me a liar, the Denver Post first supported me, then turned on me, Salon ran a rare editorial titled "We stand behind our story," I almost had a nervous breakdown and broke up with my boyfriend. And my confidential source(s) . . . He/she/they were terrified I was going to crack. And that wasn't even threat of jailtime. It took repeated assurances that I would go to jail if necessary to calm them down--along with the conviction that I meant it.

I shudder at how a similar source might respond tomorrow. "OK, I believe you, but how do I know I can trust your editor? Time just sold its reporter out?" God, if a behemoth like Time, with huge resources and a crack legal team can't even take the heat, why would anyone trust a reporter at Slate or Salon, or some guy at the Des Moines Register or the Peoria Journal Star?

Atrois today wondered how anyone would trust any Time reporter. It goes SO much deeper than that. It undermines ALL of us in the field.

So why did Norm buckle? He says, because the supreme court has disagreed. And Norm Pearlstine seems to think they have the last word. That if the court speaks, moral people roll over.

Has Norm ever heard of civil disobedience? Of standing up for your beliefs no matter who rules against them?

I just watched Norm make a pitiful defense on Charlie Rose. He cited people like Nixon obeying the court on the Watergate tapes. Good God. This is not about respecting a court's decision when they demand you stop acting in your own self interest. Nixon was trying to STAY OUT of jail. This is about standing up to the court for a higher cause and being WILLING to go to jail.

This is about SACRIFICING for a greater cause.

The cause of a free press. Does Norm Pearlstine no longer value that freedom? Value it more than his pathetic corporate interests at Time Warner?

Anyone who truly understands how journalism works--anyone who has worked very long on investigative stories--understands it's patently ludicrous for a free press to operate without this priveledge. Our right comes from a higher source than the court, it comes from the Bill Of Rights.

And anyone with a backbone, anyone who values the institution of the press would have stood up to the court.

I don't know Norm's motives. Perhaps he has just lost sight of his people in the field, of what they go through to get their stories. Maybe he feels the profit pressure.

Whatever the reason, he has let the entire field down. Clearly, he know longer believes in the fundamentals of our calling. Or has been bought out and will no longer support them.

This is too big an issue to be allowed to stand.

Rarely, in my life, have I called for anyone to resign. But this is too much. Norm Pearlstine has turned his back on the profession, and we must show all future whistleblowers that he is no longer one of us. He is a traitor to our profession.

If he has any moral decency at all, he will resign in disgrace immediately.

If the bosses at Time Inc have ANY integrity left, any interest in the vitality of a free press, they will fire him. Today.

•  Misguided

  Although I can respect arguments about protecting sources to a degree, you lost me with this one:

   

  So why did Norm buckle? He says, because the supreme court has disagreed. And Norm Pearlstine seems to think they have the last word. That if the court speaks, moral people roll over.

  Has Norm ever heard of civil disobedience? Of standing up for your beliefs no matter who rules against them?

  I just watched Norm make a pitiful defense on Charlie Rose. He cited people like Nixon obeying the court on the Watergate tapes. Good God. This is not about respecting a court's decision when they demand you stop acting in your own self interest. Nixon was trying to STAY OUT of jail. This is about standing up to the court for a higher cause and being WILLING to go to jail.

  This is about SACRIFICING for a greater cause.
  

   Cooper is trying to stay out of jail, too. Why else do you think he appealed the decision? Had he been committed to his source, he would have told the original judge to go Cheney himself and served time. To claim some kind of moral value for him for doing the EXACT SAME THING that Nixon did while denying Nixon that moral value is rank hypocrisy.

   Secondly, it's not just Norm's job or jail time that he has to be worried about. It's the magazine itself, the shareholders, the workers. You're asking him to put all that on the line AND go to jail to boot - for what? A source who may very well have outed an undercover CIA agent, thereby committing a crime? Please. /rolleyes

  by Anderson Republican on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:28:19 PM PDT

  •  Those ARE on the line!

    Putting the magazine itself, the shareholders, the workers on the line--that's what all of those supposedly stand for. They are working for or owning a NEWS magazine. Undermine the ability of the news profession to report vital news and what have you got?

    by davecullen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:44:20 PM PDT

    •  However

       You've shown me no vital news that Cooper reported that protecting this source gave him. And Fitzgerald evidently has repeatedly shown the judges that there is a compelling reason to have this specific information.

      by Anderson Republican on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:55:03 PM PDT

      •  that's not how a source sees it--future sources

        Anderson, I have no stake in this particular case. I think you need to take the particulars out of it. I know that's antithetical to the law, but it's crucial to the freedom of the press. Because that's how our sources see it.

        When I talk to a source, and try to convince her to trust me with vital info that could get her in huge trouble, all she knows is whether she trusts my profession or not. Whether we will go to the wall to protect her, go to jail.

        What I have told every person every time is that I will, and that it's a vital principle in my field, that every reporter respects and defends. That I would be disgraced if I did not. It's that idea that I would be a disgrace in my old field that seems to convince them. They have all read stories and seen movies--they're is a whole mythology about reporters going to jail to defend The Source.

        When you're the source, this is what you see. You don't know the particulars of any of the cases, you just know that the reporter always protects you.

        So if reporters start wavering--even if it's because in the particulars of his case, he didn't see the source deserving it--sources are going to see us as untrustworthy, and they're going to stop trusting us.

        And at the very least, it's up to the reporter to make that evaluation because he is the who made the pact with the source. If Cooper and Miller were to meet, discuss and come forward and say, "Look, this source was being manipulative and dishonest and violated the rules we agreed to, so I am no longer bound by them either and can reveal them," OK. Then hopefully it would be played out publicly like that, and a source would know if they double-crossed the reporter, their protection could fail. Because it's all a very personal trust between the two people: we both know that going in.

        But I have seen no such statements coming from Cooper and Miller. We don't know who they are protecting or why, so we are in no postition to make those determinations for them.

        by davecullen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:10:50 PM PDT

        •  How was it wavering?

           Because his editor refused to serve a jail term?

           He took the case to the Supreme Court. I'm sure any source you ever had would appreciate the effort if you covered for them all the way to SCOTUS.

           Cooper did what he could. Now we will find out if what he did was honorable or treasonous.

          by Anderson Republican on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 12:18:03 AM PDT

          •  no, they wouldn't appreciate it

            Yes, because his editor refused to pay the fine or let him serve a jail term. I don't believe the editor was ever threatened with jail. But it comes with the territory.

            As for the source appreciating it--in the sense you use it, of being satisfied with it--clearly, you have never dealt with a scared source. The agreement we make is that we will protect them. Forever, whatever it takes. And yes, they appreciate court battles, but no, that's not enough.

            If someone is terrified about repurcusions, they will often talk only if we will absolutely assure them they will be shielded. We tell them we will. So we have an obligation to stick to it. Trying for awhile in court doesn't cut it if they're still exposed in the end.

            And it's not just about them, it's about the next source down the line. Once we demonstrate that they WILL sometimes be exposed, well then, that's the end of that.

            by davecullen on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:44:03 AM PDT

•  I deeply appreciate your passion

  and I think the buckling was a serious mistake.

   Its a complicated issue for me though. Its one thing to protect a whistleblower. Its another thing to protect someone who cynically used confidentiality to manipulate the press - to seed a story that possibly has done terrible harm and endangered lives - while knowing that he was safe and clear because he was protected behind the "confidentiality of source" curtain.  It seems clear that whoever gave this info wasn't interested in the public good but in doing harm without suffering consequences.

    So the issue is: Do we allow this cynical manipulation to occur to protect the future whistleblowers? I think we do..but it does seem that this also opens the door for bad things to come in.

  by KateG on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:46:44 PM PDT

  •  yes, complex

    thanks, Kate.

    it is complex, but to me, if we start running a test for whose confidentiality gets protected, that's just never going to work.

    is a mob boss protected when he talks to a priest? doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, or how he's using the priest. the protection only works if everyone knows it holds regardless.

    i understand that i have a vested interest in this, and see it very much from my point of view. but i think it's important at moments like this for everyone in my profession to rally, because we are the ones who have lived it and are the only ones who can convey how vital it is to us--how vital it is to the rest of you.

    look, i was subpoenaed by the Air Force just before last Christmas, and they threatened six months in the fed pen right in the letter. and it was ridiculous, i didn't even have what they wanted, but i knew i couldn't turn my stuff over. i knew i'd let down a lot more people than myself or my sources if i did.

    (luckily, i was eventually dropped, because i had not conducted interviews with the alleged victim, which they were after. and this is gross--am accused rapist wanted us to use jos alleged victim's words to us against her.) as far as i know, the denver post, cnn, oprah and abc and westword are all still on the line for this. it's horrible. luckily, they are all prepared to go to jail and pay the fines. but Time . . .

    by davecullen on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 11:01:29 PM PDT