Club Conspiracy Forums

Club Conspiracy Forums (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Conspiracy Discussion (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=851)

07-11-2005 10:41 AM

Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing
 
Found this article, wondering if it might have something to do with flight 93 landing and then taking off again at the cleveland hopkins airport, or perhaps about the bomb report that was made on a flight that day that landed at the airport.

By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said last night that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, was withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Mr. Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site late yesterday, Mr. Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the articles.

"They've said, This is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Mr. Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Mr. Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge on Wednesday for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality, freeing him to testify before the grand jury.

In the most serious confrontation between the press and the government since the Pentagon Papers case in 1971, Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a federal prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the Central Intelligence Agency. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Mr. Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper.

"These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Mr. Clifton declined to provide details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

The Plain Dealer, founded in 1842, is a distinguished name in American journalism and was listed last year as the nation's 21st largest daily.

Mr. Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Mr. Clifton wrote. And to dramatize the point, he concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold stories based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Mr. Clifton wrote. "The public would be well-served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"

Mr. Clifton said he was surprised that there had been so little public reaction to his disclosure of "something that newspapers typically don't reveal - that real live news had been stifled."

"I hoped the public would be bothered by that," he said.



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

Dreak 07-11-2005 11:32 AM

Re: Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing
 
Most of what Ive been reading in these forums suggest that alot of you dont believe in the Mass Media hype.

You know..dont trust what you read.

Just curious why there are so many High Profile paper editorials/articles being posted as fact (or something to be considered) in support of your theories ?

This is an honest question that requires nothing more then a simple answer..

My answer..there is truth out there if you know were to look. Or are we saying these links to articles are just something to be considered ?

Agreed ?

Peace Dreak

07-11-2005 11:45 AM

Re: Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing
 
Now let me get this straight, your implying that the story is most likely bogus?
Why the hell would the cleveland plain dealer put this story out if it wasnt true, they would have nothing to gain by it, and then you got to realize that the new york times took up on the story, are you saying that their doing it for the hell of it?
You also state, Just curious why there are so many High Profile paper editorials/articles being posted as fact (or something to be considered) in support of your theories ?, read my post again, the possible theories are mine, they didnt affirm or deny anything, there my assumtions.

Dreak 07-11-2005 12:12 PM

Re: Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing
 
Im not Implying anything m8.

I have no opinion on this particular story one way or another.. ( though I am researching it ).

I was just making the point that there are alot of High Profile media quotes out there..In which it is my impression that there not to be trusted..

So..trust some..not others ? I would think there would be more International paper Quotes then our own Media quotes ( I like to read not so known International papers as I think they are not so biased )

My post was not an attack on your thread..just seemed to be a good place to speak my mind other then posting another thread.

Peace Dreak

PS. Im only playing Devils Advocate on these threads that have weak or no proof of the actuall facts. Hopefully incouraging those of you that have the ability to dig a little deeper.

Sorry If I offend at any time anyone.

07-11-2005 05:50 PM

Re: Newspaper Withholding Two Articles After Jailing
 
Quote:

Dreak wrote:
Im not Implying anything m8.

I have no opinion on this particular story one way or another.. ( though I am researching it ).

I was just making the point that there are alot of High Profile media quotes out there..In which it is my impression that there not to be trusted..

So..trust some..not others ? I would think there would be more International paper Quotes then our own Media quotes ( I like to read not so known International papers as I think they are not so biased )

My post was not an attack on your thread..just seemed to be a good place to speak my mind other then posting another thread.

Peace Dreak

PS. Im only playing Devils Advocate on these threads that have weak or no proof of the actuall facts. Hopefully incouraging those of you that have the ability to dig a little deeper.

Sorry If I offend at any time anyone.
You were born to offend.

We don't need a devil's advocate here. :)

Why did you refer to the poster of this thread as m8?

Funny, how you are full of criticisms, but can't handle it when it comes in your direction.

What is your point?

Who are you asking to agree to something?

I don't think there is anyone here forcing any belief down your throat.

You don't know the opinions of all those who read what is posted here.

Believe it or don't. Your choice and I certainly don't think you are in a position to advise anyone to dig a little deeper.

If you don't like it here, you can always leave.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.