Examining the Benefits of Reporter’s Privilege

Re “It’s Been a Privilege,” Commentary, Feb. 20: The reason given for the granting of privileged status to information communicated confidentially to a newsperson is that it is beneficial to the public that the information be generally known.

In the matter in which reporters Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine are involved, information identifying a covert agent of the CIA was communicated to a columnist named Robert Novak.

The apparent purpose of the disclosure was to punish the agent’s husband for performing a mission for the CIA that demonstrated the falsity of certain claims made by the government.

The very act of revealing the identity of the operative was a crime.

The information revealed did not in any way advance the public welfare or facilitate the public debate.

The perpetrator of the leak knew that. Novak must have known that.

It is hard to see why one who leaks damaging and valueless information in “confidence” to a friendly reporter should have the right to rely on the reporter’s commitment of nondisclosure.

The reporter’s news-gathering capability would not be impaired to any significant degree if courts were to limit the reporter’s “privilege” of confidentiality to information whose disclosure might in some way enable the reporter to enlighten the consumers of his product.

If that approach were followed, reporters Miller and Cooper should be allowed to invoke the privilege, but Novak should be granted immunity and required to testify.

Cranston Montgomery

Altadena

*

Michael Kinsley’s puckish treatment of a fundamental legal question, while cultivating sympathy, offers no solution.

Anonymity, perhaps communicated through attorneys and ministers, should resolve ends-versus-means issues.

Bruce Daniels

Running Springs

*

I believe I understood Kinsley on a journalist’s privilege to protect sources.

What I don’t understand is why the government is prosecuting Miller and Cooper and not even charging Novak, who was the one who published the leak in the first place.

Another case of administration anti-liberal skulduggery?

Martin E. Kantor

San Diego