CONTEMPT FOR A FREE PRESS

CONTEMPT FOR A FREE PRESS
Chicago Tribune: Vanessa Leggett has been behind bars since July 20 in connection with a 1997 murder in Houston. Doris Angleton was shot to death at her home in a wealthy neighborhood, and her husband, Robert, was acquitted in his capital trial. But Leggett is not in jail because she had anything to do with the murder. She's there because she wanted to write about it.
Leggett, a lecturer at a local college, did interviews with dozens of people about the case. One of them was Robert Angleton's brother Roger, who was charged with actually pulling the trigger in a plot hatched by the two of them. Roger killed himself before going to trial.
During Robert's trial, the local prosecutor worked out a deal with Leggett to turn over copies of her notes and tapes of her interview. But now that Robert Angleton is under investigation once again, the U.S. attorney insists on seeing additional material from her research. When Leggett balked, a federal District Court held her in contempt and ordered her locked up until she relents. She could stay there for 18 months.
Free press: Her treatment ought to disturb anyone who believes in the value of a free press. The Supreme Court has recognized that it would make a mockery of the 1st Amendment for law enforcement officials to be able to turn news gathering operations into prosecutorial tools. "Without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated," it said in 1972. In exceptional cases, the government may be able to make a strong case for drawing on the fruits of a journalist's labors. But this is not one of those.
Not since 1991 has a federal court imprisoned a reporter for refusing to divulge confidential information. Leggett may have been singled out because she is not employed as a reporter but gathered the material in hopes of writing a book about the case. The Justice Department says, "The only time that U.S. attorneys would need to seek approval for seeking a subpoena would be for a legitimate journalist or reporter" -- which apparently it doesn't consider Leggett to be.
What is important, though, is not whether she's on salary somewhere, or even has a publisher, but whether she was carrying out the tasks of a reporter -- gathering material for public dissemination. No one disputes that she was.
Without protection from the prying eyes of police and prosecutors, journalists would be badly hampered in their work: Confidential informants would shut up and people would treat reporters as police auxiliaries. In the end, police would be no better off. The information they want would be harder for journalists to unearth.
At the very least, prosecutors should have to demonstrate that the evidence they seek is crucial and that they have exhausted every alternative before they ask for help from a journalist. Here, they haven't met that test.
Leggett has shown courage in standing up for the freedom of an independent press. The Justice Department needs to do the same.
AMTRAK IN LIMBO
Washington Post: During its rocky 30-year financial history, Amtrak has traveled nonstop from crisis to crisis. Today, it is more than $3 billion in debt -- starved for capital and for a realistic definition of its role by Congress and the administration. Four years ago, after years of feeding Amtrak scraps and micromanaging routes, Congress ordered Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient by 2003. But without a change of congressional perception, expectation and appropriations, that's a mission impossible.
Congress must decide whether Amtrak exists to provide a public service or to turn a profit -- because it cannot do both. No large national rail service anywhere is making a profit. Amtrak President George D. Warrington has laid out questions that Congress must address, beginning with what kind of intercity rail system should exist. Should the national system be limited to profitable routes serving the most highly populated corridors? In subsidizing other transportation -- air and auto travel -- the federal government doesn't limit highway or aviation funds to high-population states and regions. If Amtrak is to be a public service provider, Mr. Warrington notes, "you go where the community need is. If you're a business, you go where the money is. But if you're Amtrak, which way do you go?"
Future role: Congress and the administration also must decide how much capital should be provided for a system to fulfill whatever future role it is given. Amtrak's current conflicting mission has left the system with large losses. Since its creation, Amtrak has received about $23 billion in federal capital and operating funds; about $11 billion has been for intercity passenger rail infrastructure nationwide. At the same time, Mr. Warrington points out, the government has put nearly 70 times as much into highways and aviation.
The Transportation Department inspector general's office has concluded that even if Amtrak were to reach operating self-sufficiency, it is unlikely that passenger and other revenues could cover the capital investment needed for a national railroad system in good condition. With sufficient capital, high-speed rail routes could make trains a more attractive, competitive travel option, greatly increasing its ridership.
For too long, members of Congress have gotten away with singing the praises of railroad travel while ducking the hard questions about what kind of system they would support. They need to be put on record before Amtrak reaches the financial end of the line.