THE MEDIA Journalism advocates decry judge's contempt ruling

The case is the second involving journalists in contempt in two weeks.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A judge's decision to punish five reporters for refusing to identify their sources for stories about nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee threatens to chill vital newsgathering at a time of increased government secrecy, advocates say.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on Wednesday held the reporters in contempt and fined each of them $500 a day until they reveal their source. He said the information was needed for Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist once suspected of spying, to litigate his privacy lawsuit against government officials.
Jackson said the fines would be suspended pending appeals. Attorneys for the journalists said they would appeal.
Second case
It is the second time in two weeks that a federal judge in Washington has found journalists in contempt of court after they declined to disclose sources. Last week, a Time magazine reporter was held in contempt as part of a grand jury probe into the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.
"The threat to First Amendment rights that's going on this summer is unprecedented," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said. "We have reporters being subpoenaed. We have judges issuing illegal prior restraints on the media.
"All this has to do with secrecy. The government is trying to keep more and more secrets all the time, and journalists are working harder to uncover those secrets. Given the terrorism climate, all this has come to a head," she said.
Reporters involved
Jackson imposed the fine on Associated Press reporter H. Josef Hebert; James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times; Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times; and Pierre Thomas of ABC, who was at CNN when the stories were done.
Jackson avoided addressing the question of First Amendment rights, focusing more narrowly on whether the reporters complied with his October order to fully answer questions in depositions about their sources. He found they did not.
Lee is "not seeking to 'punish' the journalists for publishing the information; rather, he seeks an order of contempt because they will not reveal sources that they have been ordered to reveal," Jackson wrote in a 12-page opinion.
What suit alleges
Lee is seeking the identity of the sources for his lawsuit against the Energy and Justice departments. He alleges the agencies gave reporters private information on him and suggested he was a suspect in an investigation into possible theft of secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
The reporters contend they provided all the relevant information they could without breaking a commitment to protect their sources.
Hebert, a 34-year AP veteran, said he was disappointed by the ruling.
"I believe strongly that when a reporter gives a source the assurance that his or her confidentiality will be protected, he cannot go back on his word," Hebert said. "To do so would be a disservice to the source, destroy the reporter's credibility with future sources and hinder essential newsgathering."
George Freeman, assistant general counsel for The New York Times, said, "The Times continues to believe, as we have for decades, that confidential sources are critical for us to give the public as broad a perspective as possible on the important issues of the day."
Los Angeles Times vice president Martha Goldstein said, "The ruling seriously jeopardizes the press's ability to report about our government's actions and the public's right to know."