media group where he is now the executive. we have worked with him for many years. he did some very important breaking news items through nightly news of whistle-blowers and always did an extremely credible, effective and balanced job. it was good to know that there were producers who were interested in this story and in protecting the whistleblower and getting hard and controversial news out there. jim worked at several senior positions for nbc news over a 14 year period. he oversaw a team of correspondence that broke major stories for nbc news on politics, wall street scandals, intelligence scandals, law enforcement controversies. he was an on-air correspondent

and his stories appeared on nbc today show, the weekend nightly news, cnbc, msnbc. he has won four national awards for outstanding journalism. he has won two edward murrow award and was a finalist for the national magazine award. the american journalism review profiled him as one of washington's most enterprising journalist. he is now the founder of a media consulting group. it is my honor to have him here. i am looking forward to his remarks. >> thank you. [applause] despite his kind words today, i thought i would be a little country in and talk about whistle-blowers.

-- contrarian and talk about whistle-blowers. i was a journalist for 25 years. during that time, i produced a report on a couple dozen stories that involve whistle-blowers. i interviewed and talk to and ultimately declined to do stories on probably two or three times the number of people who ultimately did report on. why was i selected? this -- selective? the truth is, whistle-blowers can be really difficult people. they can be a huge pain in the neck. i am not saying that lightly. there are a lot of reasons why.

they all have an ax to grind. they're trying to get their own story out. many of them have an inflated sense of what they want to break or their own value to the organizations that they are now reporting on. today, i thought i would talk about the good, the back, and the ugly of whistle-blowers. whistle-blowers are not truly sources, per say. generally, they are people who work inside a government agency or a corporation and they are. to tell their stories and go on the record on camera to defy their bosses and betrayed their colleagues to tell the world about some alleged wrongdoing. i appreciate what they do and the risk that they take and i am proud of the stories that i have

worked on regarding them. but as a journalist, it is often a difficult process. we're talking before we got here. -- we were talking before we got to. when you first approached a whistle blower, you end up spending almost all of your time trying to discredit and disproof what this person is bringing to you. that is for the purpose of then, if you believe in them and their credible, of them trying to prove in trying to push out their story. but you need to spend that time up front in trying to knock down what they're about to say because you have to anticipate that that is what is going to happen on the back and went to do the reporting. you need to be very conscious going in about the-aspects of

their story. just on personality, for a second, and this is not entirely a trivial concern. whistle-blowers are often difficult people. when i would meet them, they feel persecuted, hated, ignored by their own organization there is a certain therapy elements to dealing with them. i am sure that state can talk about that. he has to deal with them day after day for years. they're often not used to feeling like outcasts in their own organizations and the pressure on them can be a really intense. some of the start to imagine conspiracies and threats. it leads to a difficult situation up front. in addition, many of these folks often are perfectionist by

nature some of them obsessively follow the rules. they're just so disappointed when people around them did not treat the rules in the same fashion. is the job of the reporter to determine how big of a deal their grievances are. in some cases, they might be petty. they may be right, but it may not be that consequential. that is part of the process. you have to deal with the issue of possible skeletons in the closet. you can anticipates that an organization is going to push back and pushed back hard. they're going to look at -- for any negative thing that they can

find to discredit that whistle- blower. they have all the resources imaginable because they have the employee records. in many cases, a corporation or an organization or a government agency is not supposed to reveal that information. all the times it is covered under the privacy act. trust me, they will manage to find a way to get the information out to greet it may not be overtly, but the information will get out. consequently, if you have got to do this for the work on your own, almost immediately as he began hearing the story. it is so important up front. you do not want to be surprised later to learn about something that may not really be connected to the main issue, but it there is an old lawsuit or a bankruptcy or something that is embarrassing, it may have a bearing on what you are reporting. to some degree, you are taking

on -- by sharing their story or by doing a report, you are taking on their own account. your owning it. you have to be comfortable with that -- you are owning it. you have to be comfortable with that. there is the issue of the truth. whistle-blowers, their stories need to be evaluated carefully. think about it. their jobs or on the line. their upper -- their reputations are on the line. they also have a possible financial gain at stake. i am hoping that steve will talk about that in litigation. i was not really aware of that. i really did not pursue that, but i had to be mindful that there was some financial benefit

for these people coming forward. all that means is that in the same way that any reporter always has to assess the credibility of a source or a person they're interviewing, you just have to be that much more on guard for all those reasons. the other issue that is in transit in all of this is that oftentimes, the alleged bad behavior that the whistleblower is talking about has taken place behind closed doors. there might be an audit trail. there might be documents. many times, they're talking about information that may be only one or two other people know about. that does create a situation where you need to be doubly, tripoli -- triply cognizant of

this and do a better job in reporting. these are some of the pitfalls of dealing with whistle-blowers. for the good part, i consider whistle-blowers to be real heroes who helped expose evil and wrongdoing in our country. with 60 minutes, dick clark, the tobacco case. in my own career, i have not had any of those big-ticket items, but i have worked on some stories that i think are important. bonnie greenhouse was a procurement official in the pentagon who came to nbc news

and told us that other federal contracting officials had been the rules regarding handing out contracts to halliburton. bunny was so nervous during that interview. she just was so nervous. she had never been in this position before. essentially talking out of school regarding what had happened with her former employers. she warmed up as to the great interview she suffered, as a result, it was very hard for her. another former government employee we interviewed is a woman named jane turner. she was an fbi agent. she came to us and told us that

during the cleanup at 911, fbi agents have repeatedly removed rebel and artifacts and they handed out as souvenirs to their friends and family. on its face, it does not sound like that terrible of a crime. we went to talk to 9/11 families and they were just so stodge. -- stunned. they considered ground zero to be a grave site and they were horrified by this behavior. jane pointed out in she was vilified within the fbi. became against her very hard -- they came against her very hard and really tried to smear her despite a really good track record as an employee. a federal court awarded her with $1.4 million for the

retaliation that she suffered. finally, we interviewed the highest ranking arab-american fbi agent. he had also never done an interview and he went on camera to tell us that in his estimation, the fbi was very poorly educated about radical islam. this was something that had worked on all the major terrorism cases and was really considered an expert. after 9/11, for a variety of reasons, and he was not used in that capacity. the fbi was not doing everything that it could do to combat terrorism. when it was involved, it was doing it in a haphazard and

ignorant fashion. he also talked about how he personally had been discriminated against after 9/11. i just want to read as part of this story, steve was allowed to depose a number of senior fbi officials. we ended up doing this story using an interview -- using the interview, but as a kind of side benefit to doing this story, where were given access to video tape depositions of senior fbi officials talking about their knowledge of terrorism. steve was able to depose dale watson, who was the top fbi counter-terrorism official before and after 9/11. i have known him for years and always held him in high regard as a terrorism official. i will just read you this exchange because it sure surprised me. steve asaph, do you know who

osama bin laden spiritual adviser was? dale watson: can recall. -- can't recall. this was not the pentagon papers or even a case in taking on the white house, but i thought it was important. access to this whistle-blower -- our access to this was the lord gave us access to the videotapes and shed some light -- are access to this whistleblower gave us access to the videotapes and shed some light about what was going on. they can be very difficult, but it is worth it. it is worth the effort that you have to put into it because they can produce some of the most meaningful stories and they're good for our democracy.

>> thank you very much. i just want to say one thing. i very much appreciate your remarks because for the whistle blowers that are listening to this and you will be listening to this, it is extremely important to understand how the press views you, what you need to do in order to have a credible presentation. i think jim was very straightforward and is analysis is really helpful. i thank you for those words. our next speaker is john solomon. i have known him for a number of years. i consider him the dean of print investigative journalism in washington d.c. bar none. for an investigative journalist, there is kind of like a bug. there is something there that this journalist wants to get to the truth and the root of this

story, no matter what. from a whistle-blower perspective, that is who you want on your case. for any investigative journalist, that is the character trait that makes someone into a top-notch world- renowned successful investigative journalist. for a whistle-blower, that is what you need. john has done just outstanding stories. it is an absolute honored to have him here. he is the former executive editor of th"the washington times." he is with the packard media group right now.

he left the times a couple of months ago. he is an award winning investigative journalist. he won numerous journalism awards, including the robert -- robert kennedy journalism award in 2008. he has won the national public service award. he also produced the first joint project with cbs/60 minutes which exposed how the fbi crime lab practiced faulty bullet lead analysis for decades using erroneous means to convict people without informing of those problems. the series won the 2008 robert kennedy memorial journalism award for domestic television. before joining the washington

post, he spent 20 years as a manager and reporter for the associated press. he was the achievement award for coordinating wire services worldwide investigative coverage of the 9/11 attack. he was named in 2005 to oversee a seven member investigative team dedicated to producing high impact stories that could place simultaneously on television, on the web, in radio, and in print. before creating the team, he spent six years overseeing the administration personal finances of a peap's washington bureau.

today, he is with the packard media group. he also is actively engaged in doing top-notch investigative journalism. it is my honor to have him here. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me here. it is a great pleasure to be alongside jim and rich too i admired about my career. -- who i have admired throughout my career. i have known that whistle- blowers have been an important part of my career, but i really did not understand how important to about a year ago. a young graduate student from st. louis univ. called me and said, did you know that you did 377 stories that involve whistleblowers? i said, that is not possible. her mouth was pretty good.

over the course of 25 years -- from half -- her math was pretty good. of all the stories that i have done, they're only been about three that have passed on. it is a hit and miss proposition. the value of what whistle- blowers do is essential to our democracy. i think they bring value to what is right and what is wrong. the very first whistle blower i encountered, i was about 19 years old and i was working on it wires desk. -- i was working on the wires desk. up in such a there's a big professional fight in madison in and the boxer only can see out of one eye and they're hiding it. in fact he was rejected for a boxing license in las vegas is a

called las vegas, god the license and we exposed the fact that wisconsin was willing to let a boxer with one eye vision traded it in the ring when a former fed rejected him. i thought this whistleblower thing is pretty easy. some of the upcoming check it out and have a story. a few months later i turned 20 and graduated from college in another person caught, a teacher comments at all across wisconsin are teachers you been convicted of molesting children may move to another school district may start teaching again. you really got to look into it and we started a project away from 370 teachers that have molested children and just move to another district in 30 teaching again because there was no screening system. i thought wow, this is really great come of this whistleblower thing. i get into this. and then i came to washington and i said wow whistleblowing is a much more complicated and dark and tricky proposition . the first whistleblowers i met here in washington called me up. i was only hear about six

months. still haven't figured out the subway system and make it getting lost everyday on the routes. and this person caught that i've been watching what you've been reporting and any to me at at 630 in the morning tomorrow and i'll be wearing xml be leaving a newspaper behind and you should pick it up here at so i'm not through my wife thought i was not that i want 6:00 in the morning and there were several homeless folks there and in turn define the guy that was a little better dressed and there wasn't. the second i got near the bench, you want us and there is a copy of the "washington post" folded in half and inside there was a little hand scribbled note is that i just broke the law by giving this to you, but you should read it. and there is a federal document, classified federal document and it began a relationship with whistleblowers in washington would like to so much more complicated or the rest of the consequences of whistleblowing a much greater. and for the last 20 years i've really begun to appreciate the complexities of the relationship that agreeably or may have come a whistleblower has a menu in the the media house.

and i left on everyone's chair here some seven principals and i will go through each of them today, but i think to much into things and echo somethings that rich and genocide because they are spot on. first off, whistleblowing coverage in the media is the most humanizing experience, most of the most humanizing experiences you have is a reporter. the range of emotions, range of motives, the reach of pressures that are whistleblower faces over the course of a whistleblowing process can really complicate communication process. i seem whistleblowers who suffer from severe depression from paranoia, from just posthypnotic stress disorder in one case. and the ability to get an accurate story is complicated by the things that they endure every day, the unbelievable pressure, the unbelievable isolation that they sometimes endure when they step forward and their colleagues back away from them and made them in complete isolation. so, over the years i try to develop some principles that guided my reporting to make sure at the end of the database at the whistleblower in the public

with the same quality journalism. and those are on the sheet today. i'm just going to mention a couple% think they're important in understanding the context in which whistleblowing journalism occurs in the 21st century. the first one is facing in many cases and they firmly come to believe that the court of public opinion maybe just as important as the court of law for whistleblowers and that's not usually the case in most legal cases where issues are being fought out. but often times, whistleblower seek in the court of public opinion protections that they may not be able to get under the because that her government provides that whistleblowers are today. so anyone who's going to represent a whistleblower, any whistleblowers going to rowley, any journalist who is going to engage them in struts and principal you have to be ready as a whistleblower in a representative to engage the core public opinion understandable some pressures of what journalists do in the come together. the second thing is we start the

relationship, it is essential as newt gingrich's mother might now remember to set the turn of the conversation. if you remember connie cheng said between you and me and i guess mrs. gingrich thought that this wasn't going to be on camera and of course it was on camera. it's important to understand the full terms by which a contact to journalism. everett on the record, everything will be used with your name attached to them at this, or so taken aback or on background, this is an important one because the description that you as a source for whistleblower and you're not use your name, but you're providing information you just afford at the beginning with the journalist and make sure he could the identity come your description i because i describe you to accurately or to precisely communicate in trouble. if i describe you to inaccurately, going to get the public and trouble to serve the public. what a great example when scooter libby tried to be called a congressional source because it worked for 20 years before and went to the judy miller case. it's important for me to be accurate getting the description of an anonymous source and

background is essential. there's a thing called the background which is in a more vague description of u.n. off the record, this is an important one in understanding. between this and another record, i can't use it because it came to me, but don't the get of them for my reporting. i'm going to find a website about. and so understand that a journalist when you talk off the record there going to find another way to get that information and they almost certainly will. working to understand this for terms because the day died the relationship going forward about the cents each side has wants the understand the conversation. the third element is stressed. you have to build to build a relationship of trust. i've had whistleblowers what ended a series of stories that they thought they were getting divorced for me because we spent more time with each other than we did with the wife and kids. you spend an enormous amount of time getting to know the person, getting to know their pressures, their peculiarities and you have to build trust in one of the things he journalist is to build trust is to constantly verify information when something comes in from the whistleblower and

isn't quite ready to go back to kenya them yet real to begin a conversation, he doesn't seem to check out. the relationship of trust is a protect the public's interest in making sure will report ultimately is accurate and precise and fair and balanced. at the end of the day for whistleblower or lawyer representing a whistleblower, there's really only one thing journalists want more than anything else, fax, accurate facts coming effects. so when you're dealing with a media person you're trying to get a story crest of the big realm round the fax cover were not inched an opinion although sometimes unexpected your after-hours. but you really want is a factual relay that information back and forth, not only build relations of trusted insurance in the story ultimately comes out the public has a factual record come a factual basis to make a judgment about the allegations and the wrongdoing they do there. the fifth this thing is it is entirely a danger to support as a whistleblower because as you become more isolated, deface or

pressures come to the allure of immediately, the camerascome to town cars that pick you up and take you to dinner to make a tv famous correspondent can be intoxicating and it can be easy to get caught up in that intoxication. so it's important for lawyers, the journalist in the whistleblower to understand about a danger. it's in whistleblowers get to engage in excitement at all the attention they're getting and begin to stray off course on the factual accuracy of their story. it's easy to do when people are trying to wine and dine you. i think it's an important factor in process journalists it's ver important. six, there are many we have learned that there are many different ways that a lawyer or a whistle-blower may be constrained about talking about something. there may be a subpoena. secrecy rules that prevent them secrecy rules that prevent them from talking, yet there are ways