The First Amendment is under attack. Fight back with us. Visit fight.spj.org to find out how.

Member Login | Join SPJ | Benefits | Rates

> Latest News, Blogs and Events (tap to expand)


Advertisement
— ADVERTISEMENT —
Advertise with SPJ
1

News and More
Click to Expand Instantly

SPJ News
SPJ Blogs
Quill Online
Journalist's Toolbox

— ADVERTISEMENT —


Stay in Touch
Twitter Storify Facebook Google Plus
RSS Pinterest Pinterest Flickr



Current Issue
Browse Archive
About Quill
Advertising Info
Back Issue Request
Reprint Permission Form
Pulliam/Kilgore Internship Info

Search Quill


Publications
SPJ Blogs
Quill
SPJ Leads
The EIJ News
Press Notes
SPJ News
Open Doors
Geneva Conventions
Annual FOI Reports

Home > Publications > Quill > Ten with Jim Avila and Lucy Dalglish



Current Issue | Browse Archive | About Quill | Advertising Info
Back Issues | Reprint Permission Form | Pulliam/Kilgore Internship Info

Search Quill


Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Ten with Jim Avila and Lucy Dalglish

In this issue 10 takes a break from the usual format to highlight a session from SPJís joint Excellence in Journalism conference, which took place Aug. 24-26 in Anaheim, Calif. On Monday, Aug. 26, attendees gathered for the Super Session ďJournalism, the Department of Justice and National Security: When the Watchdogs are Being Watched.Ē Laurie Babinski, SPJís legal counsel at Baker Hostetler moderated the discussion with ABC News senior national correspondent Jim Avila and Lucy Dalglish, dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

What follows is a very condensed and selected version of the 75-minute session, edited for length and clarity. To hear audio of the full session with complete context, see the EIJ13 recap page.

LAURIE BABINSKI: Should we be surprised that the administration has gone after leakers this way?

LUCY DALGLISH: Iím not surprised at all. Theyíre dealing with a universe that is completely different than what we were dealing with 10 years ago. Ten years ago I donít think the NSA or the CIA had the ability to scrape everybodyís information the way they do now. We know that technology has evolved so that someone like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden can grab that stuff and basically, like WikiLeaks did, dump it out there. And I think this has the government scared to death.

JIM AVILA: I really think that their attitude about the press generates from President Obamaís personality ... one of control. He wants everything in order, and leaks attack his very personality. His administration controls the message probably better than any administration that we know of. ... Not having that control irks him. He also believes, because he said so, that those who have signed an oath not to disclose ... he has no problem going after those folks. I do think that he is conflicted ... about going after journalists for that.

BABINSKI: With the government seizure of the AP phone records, are we seeing a new trend where the government cuts out the middle man in going after this information? It used to be weíd see subpoenas to the reporter and the reporter would refuse to testify. And now weíre seeing them cutting out the reporter and saying Iím not even going to deal with you.

DALGLISH: Theyíre doing that a lot. Going after reportersí phone records is not a new thing. Theyíve done that for a very long time. I think the first guidelines on how to do that came out in the 70s. Whatís different about the AP case is how many records they went after in a broader period of time that swept in virtually every phone conversation anybody at the AP in three different bureaus had over a two month period. Thatís really incredible. Usually they were far more surgical.

BABINSKI: Jim, youíre reporting in Washington. How is the governmentís effort to go after leakers, and as a byproduct journalists, affected day to day reporting in the capital?

AVILA: I think what it has done is reminded seasoned journalists that we get our information through personal relationships. It used to be a few years ago ... you could call up and say ĎIím Jim Avila from ABC News, Iíve covered XYZí ... and because of that reputation of either your organization or you as a journalist you might get them to reveal some information just because of that. Thatís more difficult now. They know that their phones are being watched. They know that there are severe penalties, that there are real prosecutions happening. ... So nowadays itís much more difficult to get that kind of cold call information. People are very reluctant to pick up the phone and give you any information. They want to refer you to the public relations office, the PIO. There are fewer people who are inclined to give you information over the phone.

BABINSKI: Journalists have never been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Do journalists need to be worried about prosecution as leakers even though they donít have any obligation to keep the documents confidential? Or do they need to be more worried about subpoenas?

AVILA: I still think the biggest threat to journalists is the contempt of court charge. Where we get in the most trouble is when we decide weíre not going to reveal a source because we promised it and we donít have a protection for that. I donít see the Obama administration, especially after the big blow up with the AP and with the Fox journalist (James Rosen), prosecuting journalists. I think (Attorney General) Eric Holder had his hand slapped. I think that he was embarrassed ... and his liberal, progressive credentials are on the line.

DALGLISH: (The administration wonít prosecute journalists.) Theyíve had a bad summer. The Quinnipiac poll came out two weeks ago and what did it say? Fifty-five percent of the American public believes that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower. That took my breath away, because most of the time when you throw these (leakers and whistleblowers) out there the majority (of people) are going to think, ĎOh, bad guy. Leaker.í

BABINSKI: Do we still need to go after a (federal) shield law?

DALGLISH: When we talk about a shield law we tend to think of that very small number of subpoenas that have to do with national security information. Quite honestly, itís very rare that a subpoena like that shows up for a journalist outside of Virginia, Maryland, D.C. and New York. Most of the time when you get a phone call at a place like the Reporters Committee, itís a civil case or itís a run of the mill federal criminal case. And a shield law would do enormous good in that case.

AVILA: I worked in California, which has a (state) shield law. I felt much better about being able to give that promise to a source that I would not release information about them. I think thatís the most important part about a shield law and how weíre protected. In reality, a contempt charge, what a judge can do without even a trial is pretty frightening. A judge can put you in jail until you talk. And thatís pretty bad.

AUDIENCE QUESTION: What percentage of the public thinks that journalists are vital and doing a good job? Iím more interested in how many people in American really care that journalists are protected by a shield law or if they think weíre just nosy busybodies who donít deserve any special consideration.

DALGLISH: I think the American public already thinks that we have a shield law because so many states do and they know that in the culture reporters donít identify sources. In state court itís pretty much accepted. Like many things the public doesnít care if we have privileges or not. Itíll be interesting as the definition of who is a journalist broadens if the public gets more attuned to how all of this works.

AVILA: Because we donít exclude anybody from being called a journalist, and the spectrum is so broad, we are open for criticism. They think Bill OíReilly is a journalist. They think Sean Hannity is a journalist. They think Rachael Maddow is a journalist. Those are opinion makers. Those are commentators. They think Harvey Levin is a journalist, on TMZ. So it is a huge, broad term. And so when the public is asked ĎDo you respect or trust journalists to present the truth,í thatís a tough question for most people, because what theyíre seeing is opinion. I think they do trust a core of journalists who are the more traditional definition of what a journalist is.

Stay in Touch
Twitter Storify Facebook Google Plus RSS Pinterest Pinterest
Flickr LinkedIn Tout



Current Issue
Browse Archive
About Quill
Advertising Info
Back Issue Request
Reprint Permission Form
Pulliam/Kilgore Internship Info

Search Quill


Publications
SPJ Blogs
Quill
SPJ Leads
The EIJ News
Press Notes
SPJ News
Open Doors
Geneva Conventions
Annual FOI Reports

Copyright © 1996-2017 Society of Professional Journalists. All Rights Reserved.

Legal | Policies

Society of Professional Journalists
Eugene S. Pulliam National Journalism Center
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317/927-8000 | Fax: 317/920-4789

Contact SPJ Headquarters
Employment Opportunities
Advertise with SPJ