Serving Toni Locy Her Just Deserts
Related post about Toni Locy and the federal shield law.
Compared to their brethren in other countries, U.S.-based reporters enjoy unparalleled power and constitutional protection. America’s founding fathers understood the need for a strong independent press to serve as a watchdog against government tyranny, hence the passing of the First Amendment and the notion of journalists’ collective role as the Fourth Estate.
At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, James Madison and his fellow patriots had legitimate cause for wanting to ensure freedom of the press. The British Empire had “long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown“; the revolutionists knew all too well the importance of keeping the government accountable to the populace. There was no Internet, no radio, no TV. The only way to expose wrongdoing or communicate new ideas was through the printing press.
But much has changed since 1791. Whereas reporters were once primarily independent ideologues driven by the pursuit of truth and fairness, the industry today is becoming increasingly characterized by glory-seeking individuals who are more concerned with getting scoops and breaking “exclusives” to further build their personal brand. The industry is now dominated by media conglomerates whose primary concern is profits; accordingly, cementing a reputation for consistently being first-to-publish can garner far more professional dividends than consistently being fair and accurate.
The profound journalism shift has been a real boon for those in positions of power that seek to use the media to serve their own agendas. Once upon a time, reporters were a far more skeptical and suspicious lot. They understood the potential to be exploited by outsiders, and were far more vigilant in safeguarding their corner of the public trust. They were not “friendly” with politicians, government prosecutors, or the police, and they never simply took them at their word.
But as I said, times have changed, and not for the better. The mantra of “show me the proof” has been replaced by “give me the exclusive”. This new mindset is disturbing, but it is particularly alarming when it is applied to individuals being investigated by The Law. All too often, names are prematurely named, heavy allegations are lightly thrown, reputations and lives are unfairly destroyed. From the feeding frenzy coverage of Richard Jewell, who the media aggressively – and erroneously – reported perpetrated the bombing of the 1996 Olympics, to the 38 members of the Duke Lacrosse team who were wrongfully accused of rape by a politically driven prosecutor, there have been far too many innocents needlessly sacrificed at New Journalism’s altar.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, is but yet another of these media victims. Back in 2002, USA Today and other media outlets repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was being investigated for playing a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Dr. Hatfill was first publicly fingered by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had said he was a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
Like Jewell and the Duke Lacrosse team members, Dr. Hatfill was wholly innocent. He’s now suing the federal government for destroying his reputation by injudiciously leaking information about him to the media. The case is before U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton who on Wednesday held Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote multiple stories about Dr. Hatfill being a key target in the anthrax investigation, in contempt of court for refusing to identify the anonymous sources she spoke with in preparing the stories.
Journalists are crying foul. Judith Miller, whose “exclusives” in The New York Times years ago about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction have since been discredited, wailed on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal yesterday that Mr. Ashcroft, not “independent journalism,” should be held responsible for Dr. Hatfill’s plight. Shamefully, Ms. Miller subtly tries to cast a pall over Dr. Hatfill’s innocence by noting he was “long under suspicion but never charged with any crime.” According to Judge Walton, “there’s not a scintilla [emphasis mine] of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks.
Mr. Ashcroft was indeed the first to publicly out Dr. Hatfill as a target in the anthrax investigation. But Ms. Locy took that ball and ran with it. She did multiple stores citing unnamed sources repeating the allegations about Dr. Hatfill being a target. While it’s true that some of Ms. Locy’s stories noted that the government’s evidence was not conclusive, inclusion of such caveats shouldn’t result in a free pass for reporters to recklessly abandon their Bigger Picture fairness responsibilities or to turn a blind eye to the high-stake ethical issues in play. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, after all. Just ask those whose lives have been utterly decimated because some brash reporter had gotta-get-the-scoop tunnel vision.
Ms. Miller quotes Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as saying that the steep fines Judge Walton has imposed on Ms. Locy will make it “very risky for future journalists to write anything about a suspect who has not already been arrested and indicted.”
Frankly, given the life-altering reputational devastation when the wrong person is named, I would see that as a major step forward.