Bad Times at Black Rock: CBS Causes Uproar After Seizing the Notes of Investigative Reporter
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in The Hill on the trouble brewing at CBS over the seizure of the files of acclaimed investigative reporter Catherine Herridge. The column broke the story on the uproar over not just her being laid off but her being locked out from her files. I am now hearing from CBS sources that the network is moving toward a resolution to turn over the files after the outcry. However, the concerns over Herridge's firing and the network's handling of her confidential notes continues to draw fire from journalists and commentators. The union issued a statement (below) after the column that "CBS News' decision to seize Catherine Herridge's reporter notes and research … sets a dangerous precedent for all media professionals and threatens the very foundation of the First Amendment."
Here is the column:
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." Those words, from CBS icon Edward R. Murrow, came to mind this week after I spoke with journalists at the network.
There is trouble brewing at Black Rock, the headquarters of CBS, after the firing of Catherine Herridge, an acclaimed investigative reporter. Many of us were shocked after Herridge was included in layoffs this month, but those concerns have increased after CBS officials took the unusual step of seizing her files, computers and records, including information on privileged sources.
The position of CBS has alarmed many, including the union, as an attack on free press principles by one of the nation's most esteemed press organizations.
I have spoken confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated that they could not recall the company ever taking such a step before. One former CBS journalist said that many employees "are confused why [Herridge] was laid off, as one of the correspondents who broke news regularly and did a lot of original reporting."
That has led to concerns about the source of the pressure. He added that he had never seen a seizure of records from a departing journalist, and that the move had sent a "chilling signal" in the ranks of CBS.
A former CBS manager, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had "never heard of anything like this." He attested to the fact that, in past departures, journalists took all of their files and office contents. Indeed, the company would box up everything from cups to post-its for departing reporters. He said the holding of the material was "outrageous" and clearly endangered confidential sources.
Herridge declined to make any public comments on her departure.
CBS also did not respond to my inquiries about this.
A source within the the union, SAG-AFTRA, confirmed that it has raised this controversy with CBS and remains extremely concerned about the effect of this action on journalistic practices and source confidentiality. The union believes this is "very unusual" and goes far beyond this individual case. "It is a matter of principle," a union spokesperson added. "It is a matter of serious concern. We are considering all of our options."
For full disclosure, I was under contract twice with CBS as a legal analyst. I cherished my time at the network. I have also known Herridge for years in both legal and journalistic capacities.
CBS is one of the world's premier news organizations, with a legendary history that includes figures from Murrow to Walter Cronkite to Roger Mudd. That is why the hiring of Herridge was so welcomed by many of us. The network was at risk of becoming part of the journalistic herd, an echo-chamber for Democratic and liberal narratives. It had been mired in third place for ages, and it was moving in the wrong direction by alienating half of the country.
Herridge had been a celebrated investigative reporter at Fox News. An old-school investigative journalist, she is viewed as a hard-driving, middle-of-the-road reporter cut from the same cloth as the network's legendary figures.
The timing of Herridge's termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden's diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews.
Given the other layoffs and declining revenues, the inclusion of Herridge was defended by the network as a painful but necessary measure. But then something strange happened. The network grabbed Herridge's notes and files and informed her that it would decide what, if anything, would be turned over to her. The files likely contain confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS. Those records, it suggests, are presumptively the property of CBS News.
For many of us who have worked in the media for decades, this action is nothing short of shocking. Journalists are generally allowed to leave with their files. Under the standard contract, including the one at CBS, journalists agree that they will make files available to the network if needed in future litigation. That presupposes that they will retain control of their files. Such files are crucial for reporters, who use past contacts and work in pursuing new stories with other outlets or who cap their careers with personal memoirs.
The heavy-handed approach to the files left many wondering if it was the result of the past reported tension over stories.
Regardless of motive, the company is dead wrong.
These files may contain sources who were given confidentiality by Herridge. The company is suggesting that the privilege of confidentiality (and the material) rest ultimately with CBS. As a threshold matter, that cannot be the case with regard to files that were generated during Herridge's long stint with Fox News. Yet CBS appears to be retaining those files, too.
When sources accept confidentiality assurances, it is an understanding that rests with the reporter. It is a matter of trust that can take a long time to establish on a personal level between a reporter and a source.
It is certainly understood that the network stands behind that pledge. However, most sources understand that their identity and information will be kept protected by the reporter and only disclosed to a select group of editors or colleagues when necessary. It is the reporter who implicitly promises to go to jail to protect confidentiality — and many have done so. Such agreements are less likely to occur if sources are told that any number of unnamed individuals, including non-journalists, could have access or custody of these files.
When "Deep Throat" agreed to disclose his identity to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, he was assured that they would protect it until his death. He would not have been so inclined if he had been told that this was a type of privilege by committee with potential disclosures to corporate, legal and HR personnel. Reporters like Herridge have long served as the primary defenders of privileged sources. Indeed, Herridge is still in court defending confidentiality over a series of stories at Fox News in 2017, even at the risk of being held in contempt.
CBS is suggesting that it will allow unnamed individuals to rifle through Herridge's files to determine what will remain with the network and what will be returned to the reporter. That could fundamentally alter how reporters operate and how willing sources are to trust assurances that they will be protected.
In criminal cases involving privileged information, the government has an elaborate "filter team" system to wall off access to information under review. In the court system, judges use in camera and ex parte reviews to protect such information. Ironically, the media itself seems to take a more ad hoc approach. Indeed, CBS seems to have adopted a "Trust us, we're the media" approach. However, that could expose these files to the access of unnamed lawyers, tech staff and others who are conducting this inventory and analysis.
CBS should reconsider this move before it does real harm to itself or its reporters. Ironically, it should not want to be the custodian of such records, which can expose the company to production demands in litigation, such as the ongoing fight over the confidentiality of the Fox sources. To store such documents is to invite a storm of subpoenas.
CBS could be forcing a showdown with the union, which must protect not only this journalist but all journalists seeking to maintain control and confidentiality of their files.
The union may have no choice but to go to court to force CBS to protect journalistic values, including a demand for an injunction to force the company to secure these files and bar review until a court has had a chance to consider these questions of confidential and proprietary claims to the files.
Famed CBS anchor Walter Cronkite once said "our job is only to hold up the mirror — to tell and show the public what has happened." It now appears that CBS itself will have to look into that mirror and answer some questions of what happened to the confidential records of Catherine Herridge.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at the George Washington University Law School.
Here is the statement of the SAG-AFTRA union:
SAG-AFTRA strongly condemns CBS News' decision to seize Catherine Herridge's reporter notes and research from her office, including confidential source information. This action is deeply concerning to the union because it sets a dangerous precedent for all media professionals and threatens the very foundation of the First Amendment.
It is completely inappropriate for an employer to lay off a reporter and take the very unusual step of retaining and searching the reporter's files, inclusive of confidential source identification and information. From a First Amendment standpoint, a media corporation with a commitment to journalism calling a reporter's research and confidential source reporting "proprietary information" is both shocking and absurd.
The retention of a media professional's reporting materials by their former employer is a serious break with traditional practices which supports the immediate return of reporting materials. We urge CBS to return this material to Catherine in support of the most basic of First Amendment principles. We are encouraged by recent outreach by CBS News to SAG-AFTRA on this matter, and we are hopeful that it will be resolved shortly.
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
"Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation.”... Edward R Murrow
gee, I wonder which "russian asset" she was involved with...
"He hates democracy. He particularly hates the West and he especially hates us. And he has determined that he can do two things simultaneously. He can try to continue to damage and divide us internally, and he's quite good at it. " Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton warns of potential Russian election interference in 2024: 'He'll do it again' (msn.com)
And Hillary's opponents are all Russian assets / S
Can you prove any involvement, or do you just like to spread wacko conspiracy theories, yet again?
Always the Russians, look there's a Russian, over there too, look under that rock a Russsssssssian!!!
I don't even bother reading Jonathan Turley anymore. He's the most biased legal observer in the country.
I know.
[deleted]
Do you think if you don't read it, it didn't happen. CBS has become a wing of the democrat party.
Someone has to balance the tunnel vision of the RNC/FOX Entertainment Cable shows.
Fox
vs
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR
Spare me the details about balance!
Well if strictly speaking balance, cable also has
OAN and Newsmax which are more questionable than Fox.
Mind you the best local news stations are almost always Fox without the political fodder.
I agree. I am not yet all there on Turley's considerable bias aspect-though I am observing how his opinion pieces play out. . . but, I do take note of what issues he chooses to address. Nobody can see the misery in the lives of some people in this country and then pretend to shut their hearts to it to just write objectively on a subject.
Alexander S. Vindman ❎
@AVindman
·
6h
Herridge
@CBS_Herridge
was fired by
@CBSNews
. She was leading the bogus Russian sourced Biden coverage. Flynn, MJT, and MAGA wackos have come to her defense. What I remember about her is her harassing me & my elderly dad while I was still in uniform and on the NSC in 2019.
Oh yes, now there is a nice non-partisan we can trust for information: Alexander Vindman / S
I'll stick with people like Herridge for my news. And whatever you do, don't bother to read the article.
Maybe Soros can weigh in with an unbiased take too.
Just another example of progressives believing the job of a reporter is to shill for their partisan needs. They don't believe reporters are supposed to record what happened, which goes a long way to explain why the msm is disintegrating. No one trusts it.
You got it. They defend censorship.
CBS doesn't want their name besmudged by association of one of their reporters to the Republican Smirnov scandal. That's really all there is to this.
Dont worry, she'll probably get a hosts chair at OAN or Newsmax.
Venture Capital
@kelly2277
·
18h
WHOADid
@CBS
seize Catherine Herridge’s records and computers because she has been involved w
@ChuckGrassley
and others in the fake Republican and Russian intel driven scandal on the Biden family⁉️Was Smirnov Grassley’s source?
That's projection, that's what leftist media does. All those FBI and CIA thugs who tried to stage a coup and suppress news stories are over there. They should have been imprisoned.
Her files contained information and sources. The kind of things Merrick Garland would want.
Now we are down to Twitter quotes?
So much for credible links or credible information. How can anyone defend this?
The truth is closing in on the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Biden Extended Crime Family.
[deletedof] what's going on and are creating these nutty conspiracy and collusion theories as a pathetic attempt at distraction.
How could an FBI/DOJ scandal be a "republican" scandal?
a good example of how liberalism has morphed into open authoritarianism. Imagine going back to 1975 and telling liberals they'd be cheering on massive corporations seizing the records, including confidential information about the sources of reporters.
The FBI didn't spread the Smirnov lies to the world, the nut cases in the republican Congress did
They would rather have reporters that treat the Russian collusion; Steele Dossier; Hunter Biden laptop being Russian disinformation; two (faux) impeachments; and Jan 6th committee as gospel.
That speaks volumes about their journalistic integrity.
Bloggers don't have that.
If it works for Sean, why not JR?
[Deleted]
Ah yes. The man that altered official documents in an investigation.
Such a stand up guy. / S
Trump's voice is on audio attempting to extort the president of Ukraine
it's trump's fault not vindmans
Are you trying to state Vindman didn't alter transcripts?
That is the hill your integrity to die on?
You actually believe Peckerhead did not alter documents? Are you drinnking that much koolade?
vindman blew the whistle on the criminal trump
He's not a whistleblower. He admitted to a felony.
Can you provide a link to that conviction?
Did you miss where I said he ADMITTED to a felony. Exactly where did I say anything about a conviction?
Prove it. It's just that simple.
What felony?
See 3.2
What was the felony he admitted to?
The WH accused him of a discrepancy between the Call Read Out ( the Presidents scripted phone call )
and the transcript which included parts of the script that the President skipped.
It was all explained at the Impeachment.
Did Alexander Vindman 'Quit' the Army After Admitting to Falsely Testifying at Impeachment? | Snopes.com
Vindman wasn't charged with anything, let alone an imaginary felony.
Herridge had been a celebrated investigative reporter at Fox News.
Say no more. I’m sure there’s a place for her at OAN or the National Enquirer.