Whistleblowers, the New York Times, Broken Laws and Perjury

Two story lines involving "whistleblowers" are playing out in front of our eyes and the New York Times plays a central role in both. Personally, I'm fascinated by the similarities and curious why certain differences exist.

The first story is about Judith Miller who writes for the New York Times and who is currently in jail because she refuses to reveal who her source was in the so called "Plame Affair".

The story in a nutshell: the New York Times prints a column by Joe Wilson who misrepresents his mission to Niger and his findings there in a manner designed to discredit the Bush administration. Wilson is later exposed for being a liar and it is pointed out by Robert Novak that he only got the mission in Niger via the efforts of his wife who works at the CIA - but by naming his wife the new story becomes the "outing" of a covert CIA operative (i.e. Wilson's wife).

This is where it gets interesting. At first it is argued that someone in the Bush Administration broke the law by "outing" a covert CIA operative. Then once the called for special prosecutor turns his sights to the Washington Post and New York Times the story suddenly changes to "Plame was a known desk jockey not a covert operative" so no law could have been broken. Then it suddenly seems that Karl Rove may have been the source and the story changes back to "a law has been broken and Karl Rove must pay!"

OK - now back to Judith Miller and the New York Times. The special prosecutor required Matt Cooper of Newsweek and Judith Miller to reveal their sources. Cooper complied by Miller chose jail instead (did I mention that Miller is "protecting" a source for a story that she never even wrote - that's right - not a single word of print for Miller).

The second story is about Rafael Palmeiro who told Congress he never, ever, ever took steroids in March only to fail a drug test for steroids in May only to say on Monday that the banned substance must have gotten into his system by accident via some sort of over the counter supplement. This is where the New York Times comes back into the story.

On Wednesday the NYT had a story by Lee Jenkins that cited an un-named source who says that the substance Palmeiro tested positive for was Stanozolol (aka Winstrol). According to Jenkins:

The person who said that Palmeiro tested positive for stanozolol did not want to be identified because the testing policy prohibits anyone in baseball from disclosing information about test results without authorization.

Everyone seems to have taken this story on face value (even though it is based on a single un-named source). If true it means that Palmeiro couldn't have taken the steroids on accident and that he most likely perjured himself in front of the congressional committee.

Perjury may not have been the only "crime" committed. There has already been some concern that the new federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which sets a national standard for privacy of health information may have been violated by whoever was the source of Lee Jenkins story. The HIPAA law became effective on April 14, 2003 and by revealing confidential information about Palmeiro's drug test - Jenkins source may have violated that law.

I'm drawing no judgments on the matter but I am curious to see if either Congress requires Jenkins to reveal his source or if Palmeiro sues the NYT for the breach of medical privacy and also demands Jenkins to reveal his source. If so - does Jenkins reveal his source or does the NYT get two reporters in jail?

It will be interesting to see this play out.