Off the Record

WATCH THE WEBCAST: Pearlstine Reviews the Plame Affair and its Damage to Journalism

9.20.07 - When the name Valerie Plame first popped up in news reports four years ago, Norman Pearlstine, then editor-in-chief of Time Inc., didn’t think much of it. But the subsequent investigation and the damage done to journalism as a result changed everything the veteran newsman knew about the business, Pearlstine told a crowd Wednesday in the Watson Institute’s Joukowsky Forum.

Pearlstine, now a senior advisor to the Carlyle Group and a member of the Institute’s board of overseers, spoke about the Plame affair, his decision to turn over a reporter’s notes to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and his new book on the subject, titled Off the Record: The Press, the Government and the War over Anonymous Sources. The talk was part of the Directors Lectures Series on Contemporary International Affairs. WATCH...

Former Time editor speaks out on Plame by Irene Chen

Norman Pearlstine, the former editor in chief of Time Inc. who was at the helm of the weekly news magazine during the controversy surrounding the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame, spoke Tuesday at the Watson Institute for International Studies about source confidentiality in the media, including his decision to turn over his reporter's notes in the Plame case.

Pearlstine, now a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group and a member of the Watson Institute's board of overseers, appeared on campus as part of the Directors Lectures Series on Contemporary International Affairs.

Pearlstine's new book, "Off the Record," focuses on issues of confidentiality in the media and recounts his experience as Time's editor in chief, when his magazine found itself in the middle of the Plame controversy. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed Time in 2004 for reporter Matthew Cooper's notes, which Pearlstine eventually agreed to turn over. Pearlstine said he agreed to comply with the subpoena because Cooper's source, then-White House senior adviser Karl Rove, had been interviewed by Cooper as an anonymous source, but not a confidential one. In the lecture, Pearlstine stressed the need to focus on distinctions in the vocabulary of source confidentiality. READ MORE...

Books in the Law Review by Ronald Goldfarb

These two recent books explore interesting questions about law and media. One reviews the contentious relationship between the press and the courts when claims are made that the confidentiality of anonymous news sources should be protected under the First Amendment or shield laws. The other deals with the fundamental question, who is a journalist and thus entitled to whatever benefits and protections may be available to the press? The first issue has been debated for a century and recently was in the national news when then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to name her source after columnist Robert Novak outed a CIA official. The latter issue is an evolving one, new to the law as a result of the advent and implementation of the Internet and the increasing activities of bloggers. Read More...

ABFFE Book of the Month: Off the Record by Norman Pearlstine

NEW YORK, NY, Sept. 6, 2007 – The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE), the bookseller’s voice in the fight against censorship, has chosen a book about the fight to protect the confidentiality of anonymous sources as its book of the month for September. In Off the Record: The Press, the Government and the War Over Anonymous Sources (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 978-0374224493), Norman Pearlstine, the former editor in chief of Time, Inc., tells the story of his losing battle to protect the anonymity of Karl Rove, who was the source of a story by Time reporter Matt Cooper that confirmed that Valerie Plame worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. “This is a fascinating book about the critical role that anonymous sources play in providing us with information about our government,” ABFFE President Chris Finan said. “It provides an exciting insider’s view of the fight waged by both Time and the New York Times against Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. At the same time, it reflects deeply on both the pros and cons of how the press uses confidential sources.”

Pearlstine is a controversial figure, particularly among journalists. He was harshly criticized when he decided to turn over Cooper’s notes after the Supreme Court rejected appeals by Time and the New York Times. His book urges journalists to be more discriminating in granting sources confidentiality. (In retrospect, he believes it was a mistake to grant it to Rove.) Nevertheless, Pearlstine believes that confidential sources are an essential source of information, and he is a strong advocate of a federal shield law to protect them.

To read an interview with Pearlstine, click here: http://www.abffe.com/offtherecord.htm

Washington, confidential: Editor reveals how sources were outed By TOM HONIG

As seen in the Santa Cruz Sentinel

Two different kinds of readers will be captivated by this book. The first is a specialized audience — journalists and those interested in the issue of confidential and anonymous sources [they're not the same thing, as Pearlstine explains].

But there's a broader readership for this book — anyone who wants to know more about the Washington backdrop to the Iraq war. Pearlstine, former editor of Time Inc., takes the reader carefully yet confidently through the Bush administration's reaction to criticism of the war, most significantly the role of Joseph Wilson and the subsequent "outing" of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.

If you think you know the whole story of how the administration moved against Wilson and how it deals with an unruly press corps, think again. It's a sordid tale, really, one with few, if any, heros. Don't for a minute think that administration figures are the only bad actors. The story hardly paints anyone — the press, lawyers, law enforcement — in a flattering light. READ MORE...

Book Review by Vanessa Bush

A generation after Watergate, "Plamegate" has reignited heated debate about the government, the press, and the use of anonymous sources. Pearlstine was editor in chief of Time Inc. when he made the decision to hand over a reporter's notes to the federal prosecutor investigating the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Flame, allegedly to punish her husband for criticizing the Bush administration. In this absorbing book, Pearlstine addresses the criticism, sometimes vitriolic, of his decision to reveal a confidential source. Pearlstine argues that Plamegate was hardly comparable to Watergate or the Pentagon Papers, hailed as benchmarks of the struggle between a free-and-fearless-press and a government bent on secrecy and skulduggery. He argues that the press has been so enamored of confidential sources since Watergate that it is in danger of seeing itself as above the law. He notes that most confidential sources are hardly worth protecting, having their own hidden agendas. Pearlstine advocates a balancera federal shield law to protect journalists and more willingness on the part of reporters to disclose. Regardless of how readers feel about his actions, this is a vital look at press responsibility in monitoring the government and itself.

In confidence by Dan Seligman

LIKE MANY other books, this one was written mainly to enable its author to talk back to his critics. In June 2005, Norman Pearlstine's critics had landed on him like a ton of bricks. He was at that juncture the editor-in-chief of Time Inc., a high-visibility segment of the Time Warner media colossus. In that capacity, he had opted to turn over interview notes demanded by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the famous "outing" of a CIA operative named Valerie Plame. This decision also required a Time magazine correspondent, Matthew Cooper, to testify before a grand jury. Cooper had pledged not to reveal his sources (there were two of them), and was horrified by the prospect of cooperating with the government investigation. Pearlstine's decision--and, the book makes dear, it ultimately was his to make was instantly labeled a shameful sellout. In the early stages of the Plame investigation, Pearlstine and the company had argued that the First Amendment protected a reporter's right to keep his sources confidential. In the media world, this was at once a hard doctrine and a sacred principle. Even after federal courts had rejected the entire argument, and the U.S. Supreme Court had declined to review those rulings, journalists from all directions had been raucously demanding resistance to Fitzgerald's subpoena. READ MORE...