To me, the biggest controversy in publishing ought to be why no one can figure out how to sell novels in this country, rather than screenplays disguised as novels. Hint: It isn’t the sole strategy of readings to which travel is paid for by…the author. Until that problem is solved, even negative controversies are probably the best promotion we can expect.

So go ahead, Norman Mailer, take a swing at me; I *might* be able to take you down now.

I’ve been there, see my post (#4).

Didn’t see the Frontline piece but, from my own experience, I think there are a couple of things at work, worth some thought.

First, the protection serves a good purpose to the extent that it encourages sources, who have information about matters of public concern but who fear of retaliation, to come forward. Think government and corporate whistle blowers. That was the case in the series that I wrote on a shady land deal the elected town officials were involved in. So I can say, from my experience the protection worked.

Second. The protections, which by the way are not blank checks by a long shot–they vary with state statutes and other considerations like whether national security or criminal issues are involved–also serve to reign in abuses of power by overzealous government and corporate entities. They would use the power to compel reporters to reveal as an intimidation/retaliation tactic against both reporter and source ie., the source is exposed and the reporter’s credibility as a guarantor of confidentiality is ruined. Again, in my case I felt that was what the Town attorney was after, to threaten me with jail via a contempt of court ruling and get me to back off further pursuit of the story. (It didn’t work since the judge dismissed the preliminary hearing onto which the subpoena had been attached.)

As is always the case there is another side to the issue. And this is one I admit I’m still working on in terms of where I stand. It involves the Scooter Libby trial in progress and currently in the news. Here the situation is reversed. The informants, Scooter Libby and company, did not function as whistle blowers i.e., coming forward with information for the purpose of enhancing the public’s knowledge, raising public awareness on matter of public policy. Instead the informants leaked information to reporters to support their political agenda, which was to retaliate against political opponents who had gone public with information that was damaging to the White House’s credibility on Iraq. So here the system was turned on its head. Instead of functioning to promote public enlightenment, the confidentiality protection was used by the leakers to conceal knowledge from the public of a dirty tricks campaign against political opponents. The leakers “used” reporters who, under the confidential source tradition, would be bound to secrecy, as their smoke screen to execute a political ambush. There has been much debate about whether the prosecution’s pursuit of breaking reporters’ confidentiality in this trial will discourage future potential whistle blowers. The jury is still out on that one. My hope would be that some good can come out of it. It seems to me that what is needed is for the definition of a “protected source” to be more clearly defined by both the courts and reporters “on the ground.” If the results are that distinctions wind up protecting legitimate whistle blowers and not political operatives than we’re money ahead. Of course, whether reporters will continue to allow themselves to be used is another matter. In an era of the journalist as celebrity, I’m not all that optimistic that some reporters, being handed a juicy scoop, would turn it down, because it compromised their judicious application of confidentiality protections.

Yes, Robin, I was talking to you. Hehehaha.