September 27, 1978

Press Must Disclose Criminal Information

"Some one is going to blow up the (named) structure!  I can't get involved with the police, so will you tell them?"

This telephone call to one of my editors last week brings up once again the perennial question of a journalist's rights versus his responsibilities regarding criminal information.

Freedom of the press has been a cornerstone of the republic since the Bill of Rights was penned.  And ever since, the courts and the press have been feuding just how far do these rights go.

In recent weeks there have been several barrels of ink spilled on the topic in defense of a New York Times "investigative" reporter who refuses to turn over some notes relating to a murder trial.  Currently he is sitting out a contempt of court sentence in jail while his publisher prepares a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

My colleagues get pretty worked up over these matters and assume righteous stances about the confidentiality of their sources - as if they were Horatio on the bridge, single handedly holding off the Vandals.

It is a presumptuous position because the newsman has no right not enjoyed by any private citizen.

Reporters routinely examine the police "blotter" or record of arrests, for example.  Yet, I have never heard of any other citizen doing this, although the information is public - our safeguard against secret arrests and trial.

In the case of the bomb tip cited above, it became the duty of the editor receiving information of a criminal nature to consult me - and one or the other to report the information immediately to police.  This we did with assurances to authorities that we knew the caller and believed him truthful.

We withheld the name of the informant, as requested, subject to our own discretion or a court subpoena.  The caller had a valid reason for believing the police would discount his call.  We acted after the concerned citizen had fully identified himself.

A few years ago a murderer came to us to confess his crime because he wanted his reasons publicly known.  We heard the confession on the basis that we would call the police immediately afterwards, print his story and turn over tapes of his statement upon subpoena.

It is my policy, and that of many newspapers, that we will be DISCRETE about sensitive information given to us but will not guarantee secrecy if it is in conflict with law.  If we cannot receive information with that understanding, then we do not wish to hear it.  We are in the business of publishing information, not suppressing it.

A newspaper builds up trust in its judgment as a result of performance over the years.  That judgment, alone, is all that a newspaper has to offer.  Those who wish to speak but can not trust the discretion of the journalist - to screen the source if he can, or disclose if he must - should keep their secrets to themselves.  No citizen - and a journalist is nothing more - has a right to harbor a criminal.

The New York Times reporter is refusing to turn over his notes on a murder investigation because they were supplied by a witness who demanded anonymity.  The accused believes the suppressed information will help clear him of the death-penalty charges.

The judge issued a subpoena for the notes to see if they would be useful in the case, but the reporter and his paper are adamant.  The New York Times cites the First Amendment as their defense to deny the court.

What, then of the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights?  This assures a defendant a speedy and public trial in which he must be confronted with the witnesses against him.  In addition, he is entitled "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."

Which is the more precious right - that of a reporter to protect the sources by which he makes his living, or that of a possibly innocent defendant fighting for his life?  The courts have held that when rights are in conflict, those of a person in jeopardy must take precedence.

Some newspapers argue that complete secrecy for their sources encourages honest citizens to come forward with knowledge of wrong doing.

This may or not be true.  Certainly some timid souls avoid getting involved in the duties of citizenship.  However, we received the bombing information on the promise only to protect our caller up to the point of a serious investigation.

Most citizens will cooperate with the law in return for being spared trivial complications.  Really serious crimes usually bring intervention by responsible citizens.  Only another criminal and the mischievous tattle-tale seek refuge in secrecy.

If we ever were to assume special privilege for the press we then would have to enter the thicket of definition.  Who is a journalist investigating a story, and who is a snoopy trouble maker gathering blackmail?  Surely reporters for the New York Times would qualify for special press rights.  Maybe weekly newspaper editors also could establish bona fide credentials.  Not so sure would be those thousands of pleaders for special causes who own a mimeograph machine and crank out bulletins.

In the end, the government would have to take authority to decide who is a newsman and who isn't, and then issue a license to operate.  Displease the government, dig up an unpleasant story about a high official, no license.

As a journalist I want the freedom to gather information without control or censorship.  I study the law affecting the public's right to know and push to the outer limits of that perimeter.  I publish at my peril.  It is for this diligence and risk that I seek to be paid by the citizens I serve.

I dearly wish I could offer informants immunity to prosecution for telling me what they should tell law enforcement officers.  But that is a power reserved by our Constitution to the courts.

I am a citizen-reporter, not a royal inquisitor.

Author: Lindsey Williams