Confidential sources and Wen Ho Lee

June 09, 2006|By MICHAEL KINSLEY

SEATTLE -- Remind me: Who is Wen Ho Lee? Oh yeah, he's "an atomic scientist once suspected of espionage."

That was The New York Times' summary in its story last week about the settlement of Mr. Lee's privacy lawsuit against the government. This settlement comes seven years after Mr. Lee - an American citizen - was arrested, held in solitary confinement for nine months and subjected to an organized campaign of leaks using private information from his personnel file and painting him as a spy for China and a traitor to his country on a par with Benedict Arnold.

The government never produced any good evidence that Mr. Lee was a Communist spy, and apparently no longer believes it. To get out of solitary and back to his family, Mr. Lee copped a plea to a trivial offense. But no matter how long Mr. Lee lives, the headline on his obituary will be "atomic scientist once suspected of espionage."

And on the "where there's smoke" principle, people have been left with a vague sense that - who knows? - maybe he was a spy after all. Knowing nothing but what's been published about the case, I plead guilty to a baseless but lingering suspicion myself.

When a string of government officials denied under oath that they leaked Mr. Lee's private information to the media, Mr. Lee's lawyers subpoenaed several reporters and demanded to know their sources. To avoid an unfriendly Supreme Court ruling on this question, five major news organizations paid roughly half of the $1.645 million the government paid Mr. Lee to drop the lawsuit. But they did so with ill grace, saying that the Lee case was "a matter of great public interest" and "the public could not have been informed about the issues without the information we were able to obtain only from confidential sources."

The Lee case differs from other recent confidential-source melodramas, which involve criminal prosecutions by the government. This one is about a civil lawsuit against a third party (the government) by a private citizen. In a nation where anyone can sue anyone, and usually does, the prospect of having to reveal sources or pay money not to do so whenever some lawyer feels like filing a complaint is not attractive.

The media want a federal shield law like the ones in most states, giving reporters immunity from having to reveal their sources in various (or all) situations. A shield law is a good idea - but only if it clarifies the situations where reporters do have an obligation to society that outweighs their obligations to sources.

A shield law is the perfect place to sort out when society should honor a reporter's promise of confidentiality to a source, and when it shouldn't. It would represent a badly needed deal between journalists and society: Society would recognize a "journalist's privilege," somewhat like those of ministers, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc. Journalists would acknowledge that this privilege is not absolute. And known rules would put everybody on notice that promises of confidentiality made outside of the rules won't get much sympathy.

We can have a lively debate about where to draw the line. In the other big confidential-sources case of the moment, about White House leaks of the identity and activities of a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, the issue boils down to protecting journalists' sources vs. protecting the sources of government intelligence agencies. Only a journalist or a lawyer for a journalist could think that the journalist's need for confidential sources should always trump.

There is a similar parallel in the Lee case. It is privacy for an innocent government scientist vs. privacy for the people who tried to destroy him. Even so, confidential sources are important enough to journalism, and journalism is important enough to democracy, that you can make a good case that journalists ought to be immune from testifying in civil lawsuits, even if that thwarts justice for a genuine victim such as Mr. Lee. But the haughty unreason of journalism's defenders tends to weaken the appetite for this task.

The five media giants, in the release announcing their contribution to the settlement, said with a straight face that "only from confidential sources" could the public have been "informed about the issues" in this "matter of great public interest" - the Wen Ho Lee case. The matter of great public interest was imaginary. It was part of an organized effort to misinform the public.

And the culture and rules of confidential sources are what made this campaign of misinformation possible. The real story was a government plot to destroy a man's reputation and violate his privacy. The culture of leaks was both central to that story and the reason everybody missed it.

Likewise in the Plame case: The real story was about the leaks - a Bush White House stratagem to punish a troublemaker, Joseph C. Wilson IV, via his wife (Ms. Plame) - and promises of confidentiality made that story harder, not easier, to get.

Of all the promises journalists make every day to protect some source or other, we may hope that most do serve the truth and the public interest. But among the confidential-source controversies that have reached Page One lately, it's zero for two.

Michael Kinsley is a social commentator.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.