would meet them they feel persecuted, hated or ignored by their own organization and there is a certain therapy element to dealing with them, and i'm sure steve can talk about that. he has to deal with them day after day, sometimes for years. they are often not used to feeling like outcasts in their own organizations in the pressure on them can be really intense. some of them start to it imagine conspiracies and threats and it leads to a difficult, often a difficult situation up front. in addition many of these folks often are kind of affection is by nature, and in my experience some of them almost excessively follow the rules. then they are so disappointed when people around them don't

treat the rules in the same fashion. so, it is the job of the reporter to determine how big of a deal their grievances are, because in some cases they might be petty and they may be right. someone may have violated a rule but it may not be that consequential so that is part of the process of ferreting out whether you want to move forward. secondly, as i mentioned, you have to deal with the issue of possible skeletons in the closet so, you can anticipate that an organization, and in rich's case, a white house is going to push back and push back hard. they are going to look for any negative thing they can find to discredit that whistleblower, and they have all all the resources imaginable, because they have employee records. in many cases, a corporation or an organization or a government

agency is not supposed to reveal the information. a lot of times it is covered under the privacy act but trust me, they will manage to find a way to get the information out. it may not be done overtly but the information will get out and consequently, you have got this forensic work on your own almost immediately as she began hearing the story. it is just so important up front. you don't want to be surprised later to learn about something that may not even really be connected to the main issue, but for instance if there is an old lawsuit or a bankruptcy or something that is embarrassing, it may have a bearing on what you are reporting and to some degree, you are taking on, by airing their story or doing a report, to some degree you are taking on their own account. you are kind of owning it and you have to be comfortable with

that and all the aspects of a person's background and personality. finally, kind of the three big buckets here, the three big picture items. there is a not so little issue of the truth. whistleblowers, their stories need to be evaluated carefully obviously, because just think about it. their jobs are on the line, their reputations, and they also have that many cases, have a possible financial gain at stake i am hoping that steve will talk about that litigation. i wasn't really ever aware of that. i wouldn't really pursue that but had to be mindful that there was some financial benefit for these people coming forward. all that means is, in the same way and a reporter has to assess the credibility of a source or a person they are interviewing, you have to be just that much more on guard for all of those

reasons. the other issue that is just kind of intrinsic in all this is that oftentimes, the alleged bad behavior that the whistleblower is talking about has taken place behind closed doors. and obviously there might be an audit trail. there might be documents, that many times they are talking about information that may be only one or two other people know about, and that just creates a situation where you need to be doubly, tripoli cognizant of this and just try to do a better, even better job in reporting. so those are kind of some of the pitfalls if if you will of dealing with whistleblowers. nell just for the good part i guess.

as rich has said, i consider whistleblowers, many of them to be real heroes and in some cases patriots, who helped expose evil and wrong wrongdoing in our country. i am thinking of, with "60 minutes," dick clark, jeffrey wein and in the tobacco case. daniel ellsberg with the pentagon papers, and so many more. in my own career, i haven't had any of those big-ticket items but i have worked on some stories i still think are important. steve mentioned bunnatine greenhouse. those of you who don't know bunny, she was a predetermined official in the pentagon who came to nbc news and i worked primarily with lisa liars at nbc, and told us that her colleagues, other federal contracting officials had bent the rules regarding handing out contracts to halliburton.

and, while mac, i don't know if you remember, donnie was so nervous during that interview. we rolled a 20 minute beta tape. we never used one sentence from it. she just was so nervous and she had never been in this position before of essentially talking out of school regarding what had happened with her former employers. but she warmed up and she did a great interview, but she suffered as a result. it was very hard for her. another former government employee we interviewed is a woman named jane turner. jane was an fbi agent. she came to us and told us that during the cleanup at 9/11 at ground zero, if the eye agents had repeatedly removed rubble and artifacts that they have been handed out as souvenirs to

their friends and family. on its face it doesn't sound like that terrible of a crime but we would talk to 9/11 families and they were just so stunned. they considered ground zero really to be a gravesite and they were horrified by this behavior. jane pointed it out and she was vilified within the fbi. they came against her very hard and really tried to smear her despite a really good track record as an employee. a federal court ultimately rewarded her with $1.4 million for the retaliation that see suffered and also backpay. finally, we interviewed bassem sub10 who was and is probably still today the highest

highest-ranking american fbi agent. bassem had 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 and this was someone who had worked on prior to 9/11, all the major terrorism cases and was really considered an expert. after 9/11, for a variety of reasons, he was not used in that capacity, and in the interview he said the fbi wasn't doing everything that it could do to combat terrorism, and that when it was involved and obviously they asked by fbl was involved it was doing in a haphazard and ignorant fashion and he also talked about he had been discriminated against after 9/11. i just want to read, as part of this story, steve was allowed to

pose a number of senior fbi officials. we ended up doing this story using an interview with bassem but as a kind of side benefit to doing the story, we were given access to the videotaped depositions of senior fbi officials talking about their knowledge of terrorism. steve was able to depose del watson who was the top fbi counterterrorism official both before and then after 9/11 and i have known joe for years. i always held them in high regard as a counterterrorism official, but i will just read you this exchange because it sure surprised me. steve asked ," do you know who osama bin laden spiritual adviser was? dale watson, can't recall. steve, do you know the differences in religion between shiite and sunni muslims?

not technically, no. again, this is not depending on -- the pentagon papers or even a case like rich in taking on the white house, but i thought it was important, and our access to this whistleblower gave us access to these videotapes and shed some light on what was going on with the fbi at a critical moment. ..

i've always said that for an investigative journalist, there's there is kind of like a bug, there's something there that this terminal is once to get to the truth in the root of the story no matter what and charge. and from a whistleblower perspective, that's who you want on your case. i think for any investigative journalist, that's the character trait that makes someone into a

top-notch world-renowned successful investigative journalists. but from a whistleblower, that's what you need. john has done just outstanding stories, both in cases that we've worked with him on, but also just watching the stories he's done. it's an absolute honor to have him here. in his formal biography, he's the former executive editor of the "washington times" and a -- a former current special correspondent for the "washington post." i know focusing on investigative stories. and he's with the packard media group right now. he left the "washington times" a couple months ago. john is an award-winning investigative journalist as the former executive editor of the "washington times," he won numerous journalist awards

including the robert kennedy journalism award in 2008, this idea of professional journalist 2009, national public service award. he also produced the first joint project with cbs 60 minutes about which exposed to the fbi crime lab practice faulty bullet lead analysis for decades using erroneous signs to convict hundreds of people without informing them of those problems. the series when won the 2008 robert kennedy memorial journalism award for domestic television. and the society of professional professional -- official journalist top award for investigative tv reporting. before joining the putt -- "washington post," mr. solomon spent 20 years as a manager and reporter for "the associated press" february 1 the grinning achievement award for providing wire services worldwide, investigative coverage of the

9/11 attacks. mr. solomon was named in 2005 to oversee a seven-member investigative team dedicated to producing high and back stories that could play simultaneous on tv, and web, and radio and in@@g

doing top-notch investigative journalism. it's my honor to have mr. solomon here. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me here and it's a great pleasure to be alongside jim and rituals i've admired throughout my career for doing the this type of journalism that they've committed time and time again. and i cannot drive my career that whistleblowers have been an important part of my career, but i didn't really understand how important until about a year ago young graduate student from st. lewis university i think it was called me and said did you know you did 377 stories that involved whistleblowers and i said no, that's not possible. she covered them up and sent me a stack in her mouth is pretty good i guess. but over the course of 25 years, i've interacted and for every story i've written just like jim said it is probably true that i

pass on because i couldn't validate or verify or trust the information. so if they had and miss proposition , but the value of what whistleblowers do when they stand forward and bring wrong to the public's attention essential to our democracy and i think journalists, when with a plate of facilitating role, add to that process and bring value value to embedding what's right and what's wrong in giving the public some accountability. my very first whistleblower that i encountered i was about 19 years old. i was working on a wire duskin was thompson and a person caught up in such a there's a big professional fight in i called las vegas. sure, enough, he was blinded in one eye. 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 different ways to get information to me to a journalist. and as someone who has faced the consequences of reporting information that was classified or that someone didn't one out, we have learned that there many different ways that a lawyer or whistleblower who maybe constrained about talking about something, there maybe a gag order, grand jury subpoena, grand jury secrecy rules that prevent them from talking to get there away to play journalist information, those facts, those rings were looking for that don't violate any of those terms and yet guide to reporters there. hey, have you looked at the briefings in the court case recently? have you checked on the contract

in the last three months? little tidbits that keep a straight, give us back and guide us to a story even while one maybe remaining true to their oaths and their secrecy obligations to and finally, because of the pressures in the range of emotions that whistleblower goes there, done repeatedly appear at the reprocessing reporter goes to a fair come in process and you go get the other side of the story, oftentimes whistleblowers give this moment of betrayal talking to the other side. why would she do that? because we need to have all sides of the story. we need to ensure the end of the data which you told us is accurate because it doesn't serve your case in the court of public opinion if i did something wrong in a fit of about about story that someone won't treat us very. the seven principles have sort of a good my relationship with whistleblowers. and i think as the art of whistleblowing becomes more increasingly dangerous with fewer pure legal protections that whistleblowers have for stepping forward, having a sense of how to work with the media in

the court of public opinion i think is becoming more and more important. >> thank you. i really want to thank you, john, for that. and he did cover all of his principles, which i'm happy because i was going to ask them to cover if he had. i was checking them off one by one. and i'm going to get the last presentation and assist from an attorney's perspective who represents whistleblowers. first i like to say that, and i hope in the questions and answers more that comes out, one of the very first cases that i'd worn, and i consequence this with my brother mike kohn, we actually won it in the press, literally. it was a case of an atomic weapons whistleblower and savanna river site, roger wenzel, great guy and he blew the whistle on illegal drug use and some major safety issues in the construction of atomic

weapons. and he was the first national whistleblower on an atomic weapon site concerning health and safety. and what we learned very quickly was that the law for atomic safety excluded weapons industry. so he had no right. but he had an extremely interesting story and a lot of credibility. so we took it to -- it was a journalist at the "washington post," cass peterson and she ran a good story about his case. it was on page three, excellent story. we were going to win anything, but the contract your overreact to it and fired his number one but as. so the firing of the witness then became a page one story in the "washington post" and then continued coverage because that's how just outrageous the contractor reacted to the story.

so then the journalist confronted the secretary of energy at a press conference about what the secretary of energy was doing, which triggered an inspector general investigation that ordered -- that eventually ordered the whistleblower salt to be reinstated with back pay. they say this is how this was one of the press because he went down to a hearing in south carolina for the whistleblowers. but the hearing with absolute sham because there were no real legal rights. so mike went into it and he said, we want to process. we will not participate in a hearing without due process. in the hearing examiner said, well this is our hearing, we are going to run the rules as they want to run it. would you please have your whistleblower come in and tell us what happened to her. and mike said no, goodbye. he got up in my spirits of the whistleblowers never showed up at their own hearing. yeah, we won the case. that the ae