 |
2nd
June 2005, The Scotsman
IT’S kind of sad that one of the enduring mysteries of
American political history should be solved on the strength
of a few grubby dollars.
The identity of the whistleblower, known as Deep Throat, who
lifted the lid on the Watergate scandal, was one of the best-kept
secrets in Washington’s political history. That secret
has now been given up by Mark Felt, the FBI’s former second-in-command
who confirmed he was the source. But it appears that this gem
of historical intrigue has come at a price.
No, not a journalist betraying ethical considerations but rather
Felt himself agreeing reluctantly after his daughter convinced
him that others would make money from his story. "Bob Woodward’s
gonna get all the glory, but we could make at least enough money
to pay some bills," she is quoted as saying.
|
|
The
two journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who uncovered
details of how President Nixon was behind a 1972 burglary at
the Democratic Party headquarters, in which bugs were planted
and documents stolen, always remained tight-lipped as to the
identity of their source. They have always previously said they
would not reveal Deep Throat’s identity until after his
death. The reason was "not to play games but to protect
the source".
The rules, when it comes to protecting sources in Britain, are
laid down in the Contempt of Court Act. In short, a journalist
need not disclose his or her source unless disclosure is necessary
in the interests of justice, national security or prevention
of crime or disorder. A refusal to do so can result in time
spent at the pleasure of Her Majesty.
But to what lengths should a journalist go, to protect a source
that no longer wants to be protected? It’s certainly arguable
that a journalist who refused to give information to a court
when the confidant was happy to reveal his own identity would
be guilty of contempt. This is because the purpose of non-disclosure
is the protection of the source not the journalist.
|
|
The
courts have held that if a journalist was compelled to reveal
a source then this would make it much more difficult for journalists
to obtain information and consequently inform the public about
matters of public interest. But would the public think any worse
of a journalist who simply backed up the fact that the source
was who he said he was? And perhaps more importantly, what is
the difference between revealing your source before or after
he dies? Certainly Andrew Gilligan and Susan Watts refused to
identify their source, David Kelly, until after he took his
own life. But they still identified him after his death.
I suppose the answer lies in history itself. Such disclosures
allow history to be written authoritatively? And you can bet
books will follow after Felt’s disclosure. Perhaps journalists
should not take their sources to the grave.
|
|
