OPINION:
Media giants are paring back to save money these days, but CBS’s decision to let widely admired Catherine Herridge go surprised those who admire her work. Even more surprising was that after “laying her off,” CBS seized her notes and laptop containing the identity of sources she had promised to protect. This unprecedented act is reverberating throughout the journalistic world as it could make it almost impossible for reporters to credibly promise anonymity to future sources.
Ms. Herridge, for pursuing a story she did even before moving from Fox News to CBS, was last week held in contempt when she refused a judge’s order to reveal her sources. She’s willing to go to jail to protect her sources. Yet, her bosses at CBS may be undermining her, quietly slipping information to investigators trying to identify them.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, in a Hill op-ed, reminded us last week that during the Watergate investigation in the seventies, Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward had to promise their main source, “Deep Throat,” that they would not disclose his identity. Without that credible promise, their investigation might have ended for lack of evidence, and President Richard Nixon would not have had to resign.
Could the two ambitious young bulldogs have gathered enough information from another source? Unlikely. Had “Deep Throat,” an FBI official, concluded that he couldn’t bank on their assurances Watergate might not even be remembered today. Hundreds of investigative pieces would never have seen the light of day if sources couldn’t rely on the credibility of such assurances of anonymity. To preserve that credibility, reporters over the years have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources — even when ordered by judges all too willing to hold them in contempt if they don’t.
CBS’s confiscation of Ms. Herridge’s computer, work product and notes should scare off future sources that she and other journalists require to keep the public informed. The journalistic community is protesting the action, and the union representing broadcast journalists, SAG-AFTRA, is demanding that CBS return the materials without sharing them. CBS said it returned Ms. Herridge’s notes on Feb. 24, after pressure from the union.
CBS has not disclosed why they seized Ms. Herridge’s materials. The company’s lawyers seem prepared to argue that the materials belong to CBS rather than Ms. Herridge to justify the unprecedented decision to seize them.
Regardless of the motive, one can only imagine what’s going through the minds of Ms. Herridge’s sources. Their names, titles and contact information were in the hands of CBS executives who aren’t bound by Ms. Herridge’s promises to her sources and could decide to curry favor with government officials anxious to plug existing leaks and to discourage others from talking to reporters by ratting them out.
Every president and government official’s response to critical news stories has been to launch an effort to unearth and punish those providing information to reporters. In 1917, during World War I, Congress passed the Espionage Act to give then-President Woodrow Wilson the power to jail journalists and others critical of his war policies.
Nixon maintained the infamous “enemies list” which included journalists whose work he detested and the media excoriated George W. Bush when his administration raised the specter of using Mr. Wilson’s Espionage Act to go after leakers. However, it was President Barack Obama who finally weaponized it and prosecuted more “leakers” under the act than all the presidents since Mr. Wilson combined. His administration even wiretapped journalists in its search for leakers.
Former President Donald Trump’s administration was hounded by leaks more than most. He attacked the leakers and threatened retribution but didn’t go after them in as organized a fashion as Mr. Obama before him or President Biden today. The Biden administration, since coming to power, has pushed back on stories critical of the president and has diligently pursued the source of leaks that have led to them.
Journalists and the faceless corporations employing them aren’t as highly regarded as they once were, but even the public is realizing that the very concept of the independent journalist is in trouble. Many journalists are reluctant to follow up on stories that might prove damaging to a president whose policies they or their corporate bosses apparently admire. Limiting the honest reporter’s ability to ferret out facts by scaring off potential sources of information will only add to the profession’s problems. While motives are often hard to discern, many suspect that Ms. Herridge’s unprecedented treatment may be traceable to her stories that reflect poorly on Mr. Biden.
As Mr. Turley put it, “She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal, and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews.”
Throwing Ms. Herridge’s sources to the wolves to help any White House find and punish truth-tellers may get CBS executives invited to State dinners but threatens irreparable harm to the profession of which they claim to be a part.
• David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.