CNN Statement: We Won't Pay

June 02, 2006 6:35 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Ap_lee_060523_nr_7A sharp "philosophical disagreement" between some of the country's top media companies led CNN to reject today's settlement with Wen Ho Lee, according to a statement issued by CNN this afternoon.

Reporters from five media outlets had been facing severe sanctions, including possible jail time, for refusing to divulge their confidential sources in a privacy lawsuit brought by Lee against the Department of Justice.

CNN, in a statement, said it disagreed with the other media companies about "whether it was appropriate to pay money to Wen Ho Lee or anyone else to get out from under a subpoena."
CNN said it had spent more than a million dollars in legal fees to defend Pierre Thomas, who worked at CNN when he filed the stories in question and had been held in contempt by a federal court.

Thomas now works at ABC News, which agreed to contribute to the settlement on his behalf.  The government paid $895,000 to resolve Lee's claims, and the media companies and their reporters contributed an additional $750,000 to avoid further contempt sanctions for protecting confidential sources.

Henry Hoberman, an ABC senior vice president, said, "After fighting the contempt sanctions in the courts for years without the benefit of a federal shield law, and getting no relief, the journalists reluctantly concluded that the only way to protect the promise of confidentiality between the reporters and their sources and avoid escalating penalties, including possible jail time, was to be part of the settlement between the government and Wen Ho Lee."

"Obviously I'm relieved," said ABC News' Pierre Thomas this afternoon after learning of the settlement. "This has been a difficult ordeal for me professionally and for my family.  I want to thank CNN for supporting my legal fight for more than 4 years, my attorneys for their skillful advocacy, and the entire ABC News team -- led by President David Westin -- for their unwavering support of my efforts to protect the confidentiality of my sources."

Thomas added, "Here I was reporting the story fairly and accurately, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the government's case, and I was being asked to reveal the identities of people who were making sure I was doing the right thing, the right way."

Along with ABC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press contributed to the settlement.

To Blotter Homepage

June 2, 2006 in Wen Ho Lee | Permalink | User Comments (10)

User Comments

Well, I'm glad that's taken care of, and by the way, I hope that you havent got into any trouble with your producers about the Hasert story; the WSJ story implies that Disney may lose tax breaks over it; I can only hope that they have the integrity to defend you...

Posted by: SPENCER ADAMS | Jun 2, 2006 8:11:43 PM

Paying for a free press? Wow. I wonder what Patrick Henry would say. I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would say. I wonder what the signers of the Declaration Of Independence would say, who gave up their fortunes and and their own personal security would say. What a shame that we have gone a 180 from what our Founding Fathers wished for our future. CNN should be honored for standing up against this travesty of so-called justice.

Posted by: James Bernhardt | Jun 2, 2006 9:23:12 PM

Who cares.

Posted by: Pucker22 | Jun 2, 2006 9:40:06 PM

CNN has decided it will not pay? There are more ways to pay than cash. How about your reputation?

Posted by: Mike Jones | Jun 3, 2006 7:37:26 AM

Theu don't call it----
"Chicken Noodle News"
for nothing----Thank You!!!!!

Posted by: bert | Jun 3, 2006 11:23:37 AM

It just goes to show how urgently
we need in place A federal Shield law. Journalism is a calling you are a public servant of sorts and
protecting sources and giving a
true factual news story to the general public. Is a must! It is an unwritten law even Benjamin Franklin adhered too.(read his writings) The ethics of journalism
should not change to compensate an
individual, a company, or not even
just because it's the 21st century. God help us if the code of ethics of journalism changes
because of a mere fad or matter
of convenience...


Posted by: Joann Rabideau | Jun 4, 2006 12:54:12 AM

why would any journalist want to protect a source or sources that KNOWINGLY LIED ??? this just does not make any sense to me.

if i had been the recipient of a LIE from a government official about an INNOCENT person, i would blow that government official's identity in a minute - and i could not care less if anybody in the LYING government ever talked to me again.

geez louise, what an awful stand for these journalists ( and their corporate owners ) to take.

at some point, is having a job spreading DECEIT and LIES and SMEAR JOBS about INNOCENT people really a job / career worth having ??

Posted by: bernard shakey | Jun 5, 2006 5:53:59 AM

"at some point, is having a job spreading DECEIT and LIES and SMEAR JOBS about INNOCENT people really a job / career worth having ??"

There's no future in that, Karl Rove has the market cornered.

Posted by: BobK | Jun 6, 2006 12:54:22 PM

There's always someone making a cheap shot at the Bush Administration. When you look at it, this free press has made more false stories and gotten away with it.

Seems like Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak, but the liberals just can't stand it.

CNN will be quick to report false stories, then claim no responsibility. Just like typical democrats and other liberal media outlets. CBS prints fake Bush story. USAToday prints not so true telephone story, NYTs/CBS prints not true story about hundreds of tons of ammunition that went mission... and on and on.

Of course they have to protect their sources. If it was found out that they were making stories up, we'd know that the sources are themselves. They are their own sources, of course they have to protect themselves.

Posted by: sonklam | Jul 5, 2006 10:17:17 PM

If journalists don't want to reveal their sources, they better check the facts before they print what their sources reveal. I understand journalism integrity, but does that mean they should abandon personal integrity??? Journalists need understand how their words affect the people they write about - in this case unfair, illegal, cruel and unusual punishment of an innocent American citizen. What I want to ask Pierre Thomas is who does he have to thank for the "difficult ordeal" he and his family has faced? Sometimes we have to live with the consequences of our own actions, and in the case of Dr. Lee, the consequences of the actions of numerous people, including the press and the government. Life's not fair, is it? If you ask me, no amount of settlement can restore Dr. Lee's loss of privacy. Did anyone protect him as these journalists with "integrity" are protecting their nefarious sources?????

Posted by: Linda Schmidt | Oct 22, 2006 2:34:51 PM

Post a comment