[Mb-civic] Tension Over Press Leaks - David S. Broder - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Tension Over Press Leaks
Government Has a Right to Keep Secrets -- but Also a Duty to Be More Open
<>
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A27

Two events in the past week have thrown the spotlight on the troubled 
relationship between the Bush administration and the news media, raising 
questions that are worrisome on both sides of the divide.

The resignation of Scott McClellan as the White House press secretary 
was followed within days by the announcement that a senior Central 
Intelligence Agency employee, later identified as Mary McCarthy, had 
been fired for improper contacts with reporters.

Neither incident is entirely clear in its origins. McClellan said he 
asked to be relieved, but his stepping down was part of a continuing 
reshuffle ordered by the new White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten, 
who had made it clear he regarded press relations as a trouble area.

The firing of McCarthy, a veteran intelligence officer who had held 
sensitive administrative posts, came after CIA Director Porter Goss and 
his White House superiors had ordered an intensive crackdown on leaks to 
the press.

McCarthy had already initiated steps toward retirement and was 
apparently only days away from ending her career when she and others 
were asked to take lie detector tests -- and then she was dismissed.

For the first few days after the action was announced, the agency and 
the White House let stand the impression that McCarthy had been a source 
for the stories about secret U.S. detention centers in Europe that won a 
Pulitzer Prize for The Post's Dana Priest on April 17. But when 
McCarthy's lawyer said she had no part in that transaction, CIA 
officials confirmed that was the case -- leaving it unclear exactly what 
she had done to bring down the punishment.

Priest, of course, has said nothing about her sources beyond the generic 
description that the information came from current and former 
intelligence officials.

This is a troubling case for those of us in journalism. Our view is that 
it's the government's responsibility to keep its secrets secret and that 
it's our responsibility to ferret out information so the public is aware 
of the actions being taken in its name.

We recognize there are sometimes legitimate national security 
considerations for withholding information. In the case of Priest's 
stories, The Post agreed to the government's request not to identify the 
countries where the secret prisons were located.

But we also know that administrations of both parties tend to restrict 
information -- and that the only way for the public to learn of 
questionable policies or actions is for conscientious individuals to 
break that official code of silence.

Government has a legitimate claim to enforce the promise of 
confidentiality that officials sign when they go to work for an agency 
such as the CIA. The tool of enforcement can be humiliating and 
distasteful -- and a lie detector test is both. But its use is not 
unprecedented. When there was talk of polygraphs for top officials in 
the Reagan administration, the secretary of state, George Shultz, said 
he was prepared to resign -- and the prospect disappeared.

The tension between the legitimate claims of secrecy and the need for 
public accountability remains, however, and in many respects has grown 
worse. The main reason is the reluctance of this president and his 
administration to accept a broad and continuing responsibility to keep 
the public and the press informed on the reasons for the policies they 
have adopted.

President Bush's approach has been one of announcing a policy after it 
has been completed in his relatively closed circle of decision makers 
and then simply reiterating that policy in any number of prearranged 
settings. His news conferences and interviews are infrequent, and they 
rarely offer insights into the reasoning behind his conclusions.

That is why McClellan suffered both burnout and a loss of credibility in 
his job. Under tight orders from the top, he could do little to satisfy 
the curiosity -- or assuage the doubts -- of the reporters who sit 
frustrated in the briefing room, knowing full well that the real 
decision making in the White House is shielded from their view.

Unless the president comes to understand that it is in his interest -- 
as well as the country's -- to conduct a more open governing process, 
the new press secretary, Tony Snow, will find himself inevitably as much 
of a punching bag as McClellan became. Only George Bush can signal to 
the White House staff and administration that he wants a government 
ready and eager to explain itself to the people it is trying to lead.

When he has given that signal, there may be fewer Mary McCarthys 
contemplating the costs -- and burdens -- of leaking to the press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042602386.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060427/7a083f17/attachment.htm