The Story of a Persecuted Journalist

My name is Matthew Cooper. Few know me from Columbia University.  Some know me from my time writing at Time magazine, but most people know because of my involvement in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation, where Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, and I were held in contempt of court and threatened with imprisonment for refusing to testify before the Grand Jury.  We fought the case from the district to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court declined our appeal of the contempt of court finding.  On June 29, 2005, Federal judge, Thomas F. Hogan, gave us one week to comply with the Grand Jury order to testify or face the maximum penalty, 18 months in prison. I understand that the involvement of national security and the grand jury might have altered our results, but I continue to stand in my belief that there needs to be a set legislation. As a journalist, what promise of anonymity can I give my sources without set understanding of when I will be forced to divulge information? I can’t wait till legislation is no longer pending in Congress to enact a federal shield law for confidential sources.
I was proud of how Time magazine stood behind me.   My Editor in Chief, Norman Pearlstine, issued a statement on June 30, 2005 titled, “Statement of Time Inc. on Matthew Cooper Case.” He said, "The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, including the right to gather information of interest to the public and, where necessary, to protect the confidentiality of sources.” I do not feel that the First Amendment “grantees” the press those rights, though I would support having those rights granted and protected. I did agree with him as he said, “In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.”
I was quoted saying "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying.” I agreed to testify on July 6, 2005 regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.  My source was identified as Karl Rove which was revealed in The New York Times article released July 7, 2005 by Adam Liptak and David Johnston titled, "A Reporter Jailed: The Overview: Reporter Jailed After Refusing to Name Source." That was confirmed by Rove's lawyer in an article by Machael Isikoff in Newsweek, July 18, 2005 titled, "Matt Cooper's Source: What Karl Rove Told Time Magazine's Reporter." On July 25, 2005, I wrote my experience and opinions in a Time magazine article titled "What I Told The Grand Jury."   As I recapped on the situation, I feel I would do things over very similarly.  I currently work as a blog reporter for Talking Points Memo.

Many differences can be seen between the photos in the Los Angeles Times and the Nepali Times. These differences can be due to factors such as different journalistic styles and cultural norms. In the first pair of photos, both of which were published on the web in September of 2009, the L.A. Times published a photograph of a man being arrested with a white sheet over what was presumably a body in the background to help depict a story about people dying in the war against drugs at the border of Mexico. It is common journalistic practice in the States to not publish photos of dead or mutilated bodies no matter the horrific circumstances. However, the Nepali Times take a more realistic, honest and shocking approach as they published a photo depicting the death toll of a 10-year long insurgency that showed the carnage of three children and one woman that had died. This difference in journalistic philosophy brings up the question of what is too much and what is healthy for the public to see. While it is true that people die every day, I do not feel that it is appropriate for a newspaper shot that can be seen by people of all ages. I also feel that showing a body can infringe on the victim’s privacy, since it is not common public knowledge about that person as stated in chapter four of Cohen.

The second pair of photos focused on the depiction of government and leadership. The L.A. Times consistently depicted the men of the armed forces as heroes and with honor while the Nepali Times’ photos typically showed a constant oppressive presence of the military or showed military action toward those who are excising their right to protest or demonstrate. The L.A. Times typically had closer and more personal shots of leadership with them smiling while the Nepali Times’ photos were distant, cold and impersonal (as seen in photo 1 of President Ram Baran Yadav administers during the oath of office swearing-in ceremony, taken by Min Ratna Bajracharya). The close personal photos of the L.A. Times and the distant cold photos of the Nepali Times both carry the power of persuasion and have the power to set the public agenda as talked about by Green in chapter five. Since the media is the way much of the public gains their knowledge about the government leader and what is going on the government. There should, however, be a balance between personal and factual.

The third pair of photos both showed fires but depicted them in very different ways. The Nepali Times had a close centered zoom on the fire while the L.A. Times used the photography rule of thirds and added a human element by using a firefighter in the shot as well. The picture in the Nepali Times conveyed disaster while the picture in the L.A. Times conveyed the suffering and honor of the firefighter while evoking sympathy for the public service. Same subject, different messages.