Friday, January 02, 2004

Kinsley

Link:

It is no solution to say, as some do, that it is a journalist's job to protect the identity of his or her sources and it is the government's job to expose them. This isn't a game. There is no invisible hand to guarantee that the struggle of competing forces will achieve the correct balance. Journalists ought to be concerned about national security, and government officials ought to be concerned about the First Amendment. When these interests conflict, those involved have an obligation to strike the balance for themselves.

The purpose of protecting the identity of leakers is to encourage future leaks. Leaks to journalists, and fear of leaks, can be an important restraint on misbehavior by powerful institutions and people. This serves the public interest. But there is no public interest in leaks that harm national security, or leaks that violate the law, or leaks intended to harm blameless individuals. There is no reason to want more of these kinds of leaks. So there is no reason to protect the identity of such bad-faith leakers.

From a distance, it smells as if the national-security hoop-de-do about the Valerie Plame leak is exaggerated. On the other hand, the personal malevolence and Borgia-like scheming behind the leak is impressive. I am not sure where I would come out on protecting the source of this leak. But it doesn't matter where I would come out because I don't know who the leakers were. Novak and others do know. They should either tell us who or tell us why not.

I don't agree with all of this but at least Kinsley is willing to break from the "protect your sources at all costs for any reason no matter what they tell you or try to tell you" nonsense. Kinsley doesn't know, and neither do I, what the national security impacts of Plame's outing are. Aside from any direct effects - destroying her career, endangering (or perhaps ending) the lives of her contacts, the destruction of existing intelligence operations/networks - there are also of course the indirect effects, not least of which is the chilling effect on anyone working as or willing to work with CIA operatives.

Leaks that violate the law aren't necessarily not in the public interest. A government which stamps classified on absolutely everything can effectively limit any access to information. So, not all classified leaks are created equal and leaks about a secret and rogue government would most definitely be in the public interest.

But, the basic point that Kinsley is making - that the government and the press are doing this silly dance based on false premises is correct. The only reason that the journalists involved aren't talking is because they're protecting their careers. Novak himself previously revealed the identity of the source when it became clear that the source had been involved with damaging national security.

There's a simple way out - one of the cold-called journalists can be an anonymous source to some other journalist. Every one in Washington "knows" who the culprits are (including, I would imagine, Michael Kinsley of Washington State) - they're just protecting the rest of us. It's bullshit.