February 4th, 2010
Kansas reporter could be forced to reveal source
By David Cuillier
Claire O’Brien, a reporter for the Dodge City Globe in Kansas, could be forced to reveal her confidential source and provide her notes after the Kansas Supreme Court this week rejected her appeal for a hearing and denied anyone (such as SPJ) from submitting friend-of-the-court amicus briefs.
O’Brien conducted a jail-house interview with a murder suspect, and the prosecutor wants all her notes and the identity of other sources included in her stories. She doesn’t have anything that will help the prosecutor, but she might go to jail if she stands up for her sources.
This is why Kansas needs a shield law. And it’s another example of why we need shield protection in every state (the 15 that don’t have it) and at the federal level.
February 17th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
This whole thing doesn’t sit well at all.
Although it is RCFPs job to help reporters like O’Brien, they’ve been damning her with feint praise ever since they got her a lawyer.
(http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11256)
Presumably she informed RCFP her newspaper promised to provide her with a lawyer to represent her solely only if she was willing to reveal her sources. But in an article in the Capital Journal in Kansas, RCFP’s Lucy Dalglish is quoted saying she had no idea why O’Brien would reject her company paid-for attorney.
http://cjonline.com/news/state/2010-02-10/reporter_didnt_testify_faces_fine
She then characterizes O’Brien as suspicious and distraught, which, even if true, doesn’t strike me as being necessary when in the same breath you’ve apparently dismissed her claim as to coercion by her newspaper company. It seemed almost innocent enough on RCFP’s part, but in the end I found myself really rather struck by it. Is it innocent enough?
RCFP is involved in actions in support of massively wealthy media companies. I doubt very much we will hear comments somewhat disfavoring the credibility of those companies from the RCFP, of all people. Try saying that to Graham of Sulzberger or Bloomberg.
In the comment on the RCFP site, it almost sounded as if finding a lawyer to work for free was an enormous imposition on the RCFP for which it deserves a medal.
Frankly, the Kansas paper’s owner should pay for this lawyer RCFP found since, apparently they drove O’Brien to the RCFP because they were twisting her arm.
But individual journalists shouldn’t have to fear approaching RCFP and shouldn’t pay with their dignity. Their credibility shouldn’t be summarily dismissed in favor of some lawyer out in Kansas.
It isn’t uncommon for media companies to keep up appearances while strong-arming behind the scenes in order to get out of a tough spot. Perhaps RCFP’s overexposure to the flagship offices of major media giants and freelancers derived therefrom is naive about what goes on or would rather not know.
I don’t like the sense I’m getting that the individual journalist standing alone is the first person thrown under a bus, even by their own advocates. Finding her a free lawyer doesn’t cure that either.
I can’t get the line from Jane Austen’s Emma out of my mind, and not only becuase i watched a version of it recently on PBS: “Badly done Emma, badly done.”
February 17th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
I went ahead and approved it (I was out for a bit – sorry about the delay). This case is really interesting. Having communicated with most of the parties involved, including the reporter, I can say that this was one of the oddest cases I’ve ever seen. I can also say that I don’t think it’s a matter of RCFP covering for media corporations. As a former Gannettoid, I have no warmth for corporate media structures, but I think there were more things going on with this case (and to be fair, Gannett isn’t completely evil – I do like their recent push for investigative reporting, and to be clear, the media company involved in this case wasn’t Gannett). It was just plain odd. It looks like it turned out OK in the end (the source came forward and the reporter didn’t have to go to jail). But it was certainly stressful for the reporter, and that’s no fun (having been subpoenaed twice I can feel her pain, at least a little). Let’s hope the Kansas Legislature passes a state shield law to avoid these things in the future.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I hear you.
I guess I would only caution that having your newspaper shaft you is traumatic.
It’s not supposed to happen, and in happening, it disrupts the composure of those most affected and threatens decorum, causing the naive and timid to wince and shun. But a career is at stake.
I do think the Kansas paper should pay the costs of the independent attorney that represented her in the end. I appears that it was necessary for her to find independent counsel and the paper insists it wanted to protect her interests separately. So, put the money on it then.
It is not that uncommon for this to occur. I know of at least one other case at a newspaper where the monied client, or just whoever was paying the legal bill, bullied the non-monied client. I’ve never heard of it at a large flagship papers, but smaller holdings. It doesn’t strike me as odd for that reason – to my eyes it was predictable.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
I hear you, I think.
I guess I would only caution that having your newspaper shaft you is traumatic.
It’s not supposed to happen, and in happening, it disrupts the composure of those most affected and threatens decorum, causing the naive and timid to wince and shun. But a career is at stake.
I do think the Kansas paper should pay the costs of the independent attorney that represented her in the end. It appears that it was necessary for her to find independent counsel and the paper insists it wanted to protect her interests separately. So, put the money on it then.
It is not that uncommon for this to occur. I know of at least one other case at a newspaper where the monied client, or just whoever was paying the legal bill, bullied the non-monied client. I’ve never heard of it at large flagship papers, but have at smaller holdings. It doesn’t strike me as odd for that reason – to my eyes it was predictable.