and then that triggered an inspector general investigation and the assistant or who engaged in the retaliation was removed from his session. and he's the only time that i know about the fbi were a manager was actually removed from their position positions for retaliating against a whistleblower. that explains from my live as a that explains from my live as a voyeur, you@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thankfully, it has been my history with the press that the press does not like -- does not like to see their sources getting slammed and will rally. i'm talking in generalities.

there will often be a good follow-up. i hope that correct the record. [laughter] another question, please? >> when you were discussing dick clark, you mentioned he was able to frame the debate which was unusual in many respects. many whistle-blowers do not really get to frame the debate. respects. a lot of whistleblowers don't really get to frame the debate. the media frame set before them. a prime example that i had was after 9/11, we had information that was well-known that the nuclear power facilities are at risk for airstrikes and the

federal government was covering up the fact. and we have bleached to us the information that dennis or did that. so something could have been to address the issue. and when we couldn't get anyone to take it seriously and the government and admit that they're lying to the federal -- or at least tell us something that made us feel that the country was did. we went to the media and the media ended up running the story about how this document was found in the public records at the nrc identified that it was -- to the new power plants were safe and that al qaeda could have gotten this. but the point of going to the media was to correct the problem. and after which ones you had what it enters the closing down and shutting off any information that should legitimately be out there so we can really assess what was going on. and so that was like the exact

opposite of being able to frame what was going on. and so i'm wondering with dick clark and the whispers something in which he was able to do to frame the debate. was whether this level of sophistication? did he have an attorney? to be at the representative? why was he able to frame it so successful? >> because he so smart. i think he anticipated everything at the white house would throw at them. i never had this discussion with him, but when they came after him, he seems to be one step ahead of them. and so i just think he not only did what he felt he had to do, but he was smart enough to realize what the reaction would he and he -- and you know, he

prepared himself for it. in the other thing that went on acm agnew each other for a long time before the piece ran. and it was clear that we had a meeting of the minds about what the piece would be. i mean, if he shopped there and had one thesis and i have another thesis, you know, a would like to them about what my thesis was and if it was at odds with his, he might well have gone elsewhere to do it. and i wouldn't have blamed him. you know, for a piece like that, you know, you not only -- after you're satisfied yourself that the facts are there and that this person, you know, motivated for the right reasons, you know, you develop a sense of identity with the source in this way, that you don't want to do

anything that is going to hurt him. you know, and ultimately he or she has to make your decision. and if we don't see eye to eye on the piece, then i don't want him to do it with me, you know, then he should go and maybe somebody at the "washington post" or abc will frame it the way he did. but that was not an issue with us. so there's a lot of off-camera stuff. i mean, you know, days, weeks, in which all of this is discussed and he came to know intrinsically how i saw the story and therefore the way he thought is the way i saw it after a thorough investigation and we will forward. and so that's how he was able to frame it. >> this is not strictly relevant to the question about framing, the rich just brought up an

interesting point. i often found that when you engage in this relationship and you go through georgiou diligence, at a certain point you really do become very closely associated with a whistleblower if you've than a story. and your credibility is on the line at the same time. i found in my own case, you know, the organizations that i worked for like the stories, that they wanted to make sure they were airtight. and if a serious challenge came to the story, i had to defend its almost as strongly as the whistleblower did. so that's why it was so important to that work up front. you can intrinsically linked with your own whistleblower when you do the stories. >> so elaborate on that. i'm sure the lawyers go through this with their clients. i mean, when you meet somebody

who is sharing all of this with you, like john said your domain, you know, you almost become a married couple. and, you know, if they're taking -- if they're acting bravely and their team in the interest of a higher principle, you can't help but like them often. but at the same time, at the end of the day, you're a journalist and you have a devotion to truth and you have, quite honestly, every card for your own career. and so you have to have this parallel set of relationships going on where you may have liked the guy and you may have wanted and you'll never want to do anything to hurt them, but you have to be ruthless about your pursuit of the facts and the truth. and when push comes to shove,

for reasons of self-interest and there's reasons of what got you into journalism in the first race. you go with the facts. and i mean, one of the classic examples before my time at "60 minutes." i forgot his name now, some vietnam era colonel. i want to say herbert -- i don't know. he came to "60 minutes" with this unbelievable story. mike wallace and barry landrieu was the producer. and they went weeks and months going down one afternoon about what the story would be in at the end of the day, barry landrieu, the producer, realized that this guy who it got was actually a fraud and was perpetrating a major fraud on the u.s. government and on "60 minutes" and the news media and barry turned the tables and in the end, you know, his devotion was to the facts, to the truth.

and so, so that -- i guess the point is, you know, you can like somebody, you can identify with somebody, but at the end of the day, it's got to check out and we check it out ruthlessly. our devotion to the truth is the matter. so, that's my elaboration. >> i think you summed it up perfectly. i remember one little incident of a guide with stories about and buy a waste since there was something he hadn't told her they couldn't get it from anyone. finally i found the flaw in his background and i put it out there and i remember he said how could she do that? that's what we are. we're not friends at the end of the day. worldly professionals and we trusted with the public trust of getting the story completely and if you didn't tell me and it's essential to the american public, we're going to report it. or not there should be our advocate.

i remember how angry was. does a very powerful moment of screaming and learning and calling me names. but that's what were entrusted with and we really have to stay true to. it's hard not to get a touch of these whistleblowers and you have to pull yourself back him up and remind yourself that even though what they're going through, your job is to stay as neutral as honest an arbitrary to the facts as you can possibly be. >> i'm going to try to question to the panelists. i hope it's appropriate. i would just like each of them to it respond to their view of protecting sources, even though under the u.s. constitution, there is no first amendment right to keep a source confidential. so therefore you can be compelled the recipient a comic grand jury or civil subpoena to reveal a source. what's your personal view on that as a journalist, not just politically, like how you deal with that in dealing with sources is what i would like to

know. i'm not looking for your -- we understand what the news media comes from as a matter of ideology, but i'm just looking forward to you personally deal that when you're dealing with confidential services. >> i'll jump in here. my view on this changeover, you know, the 25 years i was reporter, i used to think that that was kind of sacrosanct and you -- i'm not speaking from a personal point of view, but in terms of the law that sources really would have conjecture. i saw that been abridged over the years and obviously you look at coming in now, during the bush administration what happened in a lot of reporters, john, that's a good example and that's actually became come you know, all most typical in a way. the other thing i saw is that corporations, these big corporations, especially when

the economy started to go south, there was a lot of pressure. no one wanted a big lawsuit like that. and i saw the legal departments kind of way for a little bit good they want us dead fast as i wanted them to be. and so i would enter into a relationship to a source with a whistleblower and i kind of pepper that first conversation with a lot of caveats. towards the end of my career, journalism career i wouldn't go in and sit your protected and backward to go to jail if we all died before it turned you over. i'd be more realistic about it same i will do everything in my power to protect you. however, there maybe circumstances that come up with out of my control. and you know, i thought about what would happen if in my case at nbc said, we're not going to back you. this wasn't contractual.

and no, i became much more guarded and careful about how i laid that out with my sources. i'm curious to hear what you guys have to say. >> jim is exactly right. in fact, i'm reminded of the men couldn't case where the ultimate day time warner made the decision to violate his source relationship when he was wanting to go to prison for appears with a competent circumstance. i changed my practices in the last decade and limiting the number of people that you always end with your immediate thoughts coming your sources so they can ascertain that a non-source. i've limited the number of people as to what to to decrease witnesses in an effort to find that my sources are into aborted try to avoid the circumstances were looking at the bottom line what to say heck with that, and giving up a source because we don't have any more money. when i became executive editor of the "washington times," i inherited a very sensitive case

involving national security on the board of bill gertz and they fed two and half years trying to get his confidential source on a story involving chinese espionage and you know, there were all these financial in the paper. we fought that to a nail at enormous cost. i spent more defending bill bennett did on the entire rest of the news coverage. and of course to national news coverage. and we it's the only decision left tenures which fit taunt. he came at enormous cost of newspaper and we spend enormous amounts of money, unbelievable amounts of my defending him. but it's worth it and i hope as we get back to the basics of our journalism that we don't lose sight with remake that obligation we really have to stick to it from the corporate titans all the way down to the regional reporter. >> yeah, i mean, the question is that what point are you going to go to jail for a source.

and you know, i rarely let it get to that because i've been able to usually take somebody'sr my tipster becomes marginal or irrelevant to what we ultimately put on the air. at the same time, i will not put that person's name anywhere in my computer for my notes, anything like that. , so there is no way of it getting traced should the

government attempted to seize my records. the only other thing i would add is a twist on confidential sources. when i was doing a story once about medical -- a medical researcher who blew the whistle on a company that killed her research because it proved that this drug that the pharmaceutical company was bankrolling was ineffectual. i tried to be even-handed and i talked to the whistle blower and she was on the record for some things and off the record for other stuff and i felt like i did not know what the facts were because whistleblowers are complicated people. point i came -- so i went on background and off the record with corporate executives and at some point i realized what they were doing was completely trashing her in such a way that they have no

obligation, no responsibility for anything they were telling me. but i was obligated to check it out and ask her about it, you know, or collar people and get the rumor mill going. and so, at a certain point i realized what they were doing and i just said, nothing is off the record, no more. and we just let forward. if you're not willing to sit on the record, then i'm not interested in hearing about it. so that was just sort of a twist, sort of the kind of corporate version of the scooter libby use of confidential sources. so anyway, okay. >> that actually reminds me in the context of whistleblowers, it is common for the employer to then use off the record or background information to trash on the whistleblower, to try to get some traction against an

employee. there are famous cases, for example, the linda tripp case where they went into her security file. .. >> question?

>> out of the events so successful in getting into the media? >> that is a question i was going to ask our friends in the media. the question and i haven't i don't know the answer to that, but the question that i have to the panel is it there were two or three things when they whistle-blower comes ford initially to get on first base what are you looking at in a whistle-blower that says this might be something worthy of a full investigation for a few starts investigation and what are the guidepost you are looking at? i don't know the answer. >> it is the thumb rule of let you look at when you whistle-blower has some of the negatives that jim mentioned and may have a lawsuit or issues with their employer.

what do look at it with the initial venting process to determine if this is a real case? >> i think it comes down to what you can consider to be newsworthy. whistle-blowers coming to you with a story that is germane and the news you will be more interested. i look for people with high-level access and, not someone on the lower rungs. i would love to have any kind of documentation. if they come to you with instant corroboration that helps immensely. you may want to look someone in the night and assess how credible they are then go through the whole process of trying to weed out people who are not credible. >> i don't want to give away

"60 minutes" secrets but i was impressed beyond all believe about the effort so one of the colleagues that produces four steve croft we were doing the project and i picked them up at the airport to be day low-level fbi agent that may know something about the case and looking at the associate producer with a gun up and coming journalist it is three and a half for 4 inches thick and we thought we had to ask and what is that? this is everything i dug up on agent acts she had dug up everything to the point* of knowing what the favorite wines he had and he was a wine taster and she knew things about his life and i watched when you get the a gut check meeting the

whistle-blower for the first time and the ability of doing such thorough research you could have an engaging conversation with the person right away. i really know all of these things about you. when i saw that do journalism -- two digits since -- due diligence that is journalism at its best track of the media may have gotten it wrong but not precisely capture what really went on because they had not taken the due diligence "60 minutes" does every time. that is probably the most important thing. way one tip faxed we deal with that. what is great is that he always comes and they know that we need a facts to be validated show me how i will get there that is what builds a level of trust. it is checking facts in has

to be daunted and crossed. >> >> it is all situational. sometimes a whistle blower will come with something that is esoteric or just doesn't reach the threshold. i don't know what that is it does not reach the threshold but generally it is something that is of national consequence may be surprising you did not know that war makes you think about in a different way. and in terms of what the attorneys were whistle-blowers can do, it is like john said we do an amazing amount.

the glory for me is "60 minutes." l. they do four or five stories per year at the end of the day we will shoot 900 minutes and whittle it down at 13 minutes because the amount of information that we know is a breathtaking. and parenthetically it is a way to get out of a threatened lawsuit. this will come out in court if you sue us and the lawsuit was dropped. but what a lawyer can do is to know the story. know the case and present it

and then the it is just meeting fed guy and eyeballing him or her and finding out if it is everything he o.r. she says and if it holds up in terms of the interest bedded is very general. it is so general. it is hard to make a hard and fast rule. >> is there another question? >> but with the decline of newspapers with investigative reporting? [inaudible] it. >> that is the excellent question. >> with diminished resources for investigative reporting is a real problem. >> i have two theories we

have more expensive not just because we are paid a lot of money but spend a lot of money going after things but almost as difficult to deal with so when the big risk that they go to the investigative journalist because they are difficult to deal with but this is closest to my personal interest to have a journalism in the name of saving money abandon one of the greatest obligations to the public. if you think how this country started with thomas paine's pamphlets that rose to fight tyranny and become a country is south the u.s. today so many papers are myopic we analyze what happened yesterday are right about what we think will happen tomorrow and so few people it takes time. you have to spend hours at a dinner table talking to a whistle-blower you may decide was not worth talking to because the one to talk to about their house not

substantive but we need as a profession to get ahold of. if i wrote a book today i would say stop the winding, not the press is. we have convince the public we're not worth that much and have relent ever owned business model. but one of the things we're working on is to come up with a business model to support a robust investigative journalism. i am at a nonprofit center that just spend money to do accountability journalism every day and there is another one out of new york doing the same thing. it has to transfer outside of the profession i am glad people are stepping forward and my goal within the profession is to convince editors and publishers that investigative journalism is essential to the public discourse and it cannot be

profitable if done the right way and the great minds at the table need to figure how to convince our bosses of that. >> we were chuckling when talking about working on a story because any news organization especially not the magazine there is a constant pressure to turn it out. investigative units are costly and time-consuming. and the traditional models will probably go away or decline significantly. however i am not quite as downbeat because they're all of these other new models that are starting with the web at. there was a guy that was reading about that has a notion he is exploring now within local markets he publicizes an area of inquiry and investigation

and solicits donations from interested citizens. it is like a little microfinance thing way on a local level to finance an investigation it is not traditional but if it works it is fantastic. i am a little more optimistic. >> out ask our panel listed they have been a concluding remarks they want to share with the audience as we wrap it up? i will go in reverse order and start with john if there's anything you want to say in closing? am i thank you for your time this is such an important aspect of democracy to make sure the government and business leaders are held accountable and the secrets can be brought to light when needed. just the fact we're having this conversation helps a lot to educate