Reporter lectures on journalists' rights

A journalist found himself in a tough position when he got a phone call. On the other line, an FBI agent told him he and two other reporters would be put behind bars if they failed to hand over 12 hours of interview tapes with a key witness to a terrorism trial. Weeks later, a U.S. District Judge issued the official order saying that by 9:30 the next morning the tapes must be given up. So he did what he felt was right. \nAbdon Pallasch told his two young sons he might be going to jail.\nPallasch, a Legal Affairs reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, was greeted by a wave of applause as he stood before a room of J300 students Monday at Ernie Pyle Hall. \nHe was invited to speak to Anthony Fargo's Communications Law class about two instances in which he was asked to give up information he acquired while writing controversial stories. Pallasch has become one of a number of journalists involved in what seems to be a legal trend against reporter's privilege, or the right journalists often declare they have to keep all information they acquire in the newsgathering process confidential, including notes, tapes, photographs and the identities of their sources.\nLike Pallasch, other reporters have threats of jail sentences looming over their heads currently. Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, was found in contempt of court Oct. 8 for refusing to divulge information to a grand jury that would aid in the investigation of the leak of a CIA agent's identity to the media, and faces up to 18 months in jail. \n"I'll go to jail before I give up my source, and I mean that," Pallasch said. "People are afraid of the press and they shouldn't be. We as journalists should be able to interview, click to record the information, and a source should trust it's not going to be used against them."\nWhile many states like Illinois have written reporter's privilege into law, federal law does not recognize this privilege. Judges look to the 1972 Supreme Court case Branzburg v. Hayes when ruling on these issues, in which the majority reasoned that journalists have the same duties as all citizens to appear when called to give evidence. \nHowever, Justice Potter Stewart recognized that journalists should have a "qualified privilege," meaning the government cannot just swoop down and take their information without good reason because it would interfere with the free flow of information to the public.\nJournalism professor Anthony Fargo said he does not think a law protecting journalist's privilege will be passed anytime soon.\n"I'm not optimistic," Fargo said. "Do I think they'll be proposed, yes, but passed, I'm not so sure. I think for some reason the government has come to the conclusion that it's ok to make reporters into investigators for the government."\nPallasch and Sun-Times colleague Robert Herguth wrote a series of stories about David Rupert, an American trucker whom the FBI recruited to infiltrate the Irish Republican Army, a terrorist group thought to be responsible for the 1998 Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland that killed 29 people. \nPallasch and Herguth linked up with Chicago Tribune reporter Flynn McRoberts, and with the cooperation of Rupert, who was and still is in the witness protection program, they taped hours of Rupert's account of his experience. Rupert discussed his relationship with Mickey McKevitt, the alleged head of the IRA. McKevitt was facing a sentence of up to 20 years in prison after the Irish government charged him with "directing terrorism." Rupert was the main witness against him. \nWhen McKevitt's attorney learned of their interview with Rupert, he insisted the judge give the three reporters an official order to give up their tapes which were key components to the cross examination of Rupert. \nAfter much thought and persuasion from their lawyers, Pallasch and his colleagues gave up the tapes. They realized if they appealed to the Supreme Court, it would probably be overturned and they would be doing more harm to the cause than good, Pallasch said, because then an opinion would be written that could hamper journalist's privilege in all 50 states.\n"I really hated giving up those tapes, but we'd still be in jail, and the law would be just as bad," Pallasch said. \nIn one such other case, Pallasch and Sun-Times rock critic, Jim DeRogatis, broke the news that singer songwriter, R. Kelly, had been having sexual relations with girls as young as 15. They had the tape to prove it. They were issued a subpoena to hand the tape over to the Chicago Police Department, which they did because it was a crucial piece of evidence in the investigation.\n"We possessed evidence of a felony," Pallasch said. "We concluded we had a legal obligation to turn it over."\nJunior Rebecca Taxman, a student in Fargo's class, said that if she were in Pallasch's shoes she would have done what he did. However, she said she finds it troublesome as an aspiring journalist that the government is trying to control the press.\n"If journalists keep having to give up their sources then people aren't going to want to give up information because they will feel threatened," Taxman said. "If you don't have reporters reporting the facts, then it's going to cause a breakdown in our system."\n-- Contact staff writer Lindsay Lyon at lrlyon@indiana.edu.