Should Have Stayed At FOX

[Kathianne]

Catherine Herridge axed at CBS, in cost cutting move. Just had turned in story on Biden:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1757538010718191679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1757538010718191679%7Ctwgr% 5E31fe424ebdf7331c1716d8961ec6a70b54a6fdc8%7Ctwcon %5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F632021%2F

[Kathianne]

She has been a very good investigative journalist, may well get interesting:

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/02/23/catherine-herridge-cbs-response-n2170486


What Happened to Catherine Herridge's Files: Sources Dish, CBS RespondsBy Nick Arama | 9:35 AM on February 23, 2024The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.



AP Photo/Chris Pizzello
Americans were shocked when CBS fired one of their best journalists, Catherine Herridge, as part of hundreds of blood bath layoffs.


That was bad enough. But then when the news broke that they'd seized her files, records and computers, the concern hit an even higher pitch as this not only put her sources at risk, but the precedent it was setting was very troubling for all journalists contemplating the consequences of a company doing something like this.


Many suspected there was more to the Herridge layoff than just money because of her Biden investigations.


Reports were that she had roadblocks from higher-ups over her Hunter Biden coverage and had also clashed with CBS News President Ingrid-Ciprian Matthews,


On Thursday, Catherine Herridge posted an update from SAG-AFTRA who represents broadcast journalists and who condemned CBS' actions. SAG-AFTRA said that CBS was responding to them so they hoped that this could be resolved and she could get her files back.


I don't think that CBS thought that there was going to be such a huge backlash to their actions.


But now sources are dishing on what happened to Herridge's things.


“It’s so extraordinary,” a source familiar with the situation told The Post, noting that the files — which are presumptively now the property of CBS News — most likely contain confidential material from Herridge’s stints at both Fox and CBS.


The source said the network boxed up all her personal belongings except for Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what — if anything — would be returned to her.


“They never seize documents [when you’re let go],” a second source close to the network said.


“They want to see what damaging documents she has.”


The speculation runs from Biden documents to anything that she might have on her sources in her First Amendment court fight. Or perhaps as one of the sources speculated that she might have information that could be relevant to a wrongful termination action.


Meanwhile, CBS is weighing in with a statement of their own, hoping to calm the anger.


We have respected her request to not go through the files, and out of our concern for confidential sources, the office she occupied has remained secure since her departure,” the rep told The Post.


“We are prepared to pack up the rest of her files immediately on her behalf – with her representative present as she requested.”


Now if I compare what the sources say to what CBS is saying, the obvious question to me is that, assuming what the sources are saying is true, how do you determine what her "personal belongings" are unless you're going through her office/things? And forgive me if I don't feel too assured by CBS' statement that they haven't gone through her files. Why do this to begin with? They haven't explained why they took such an unprecedented action.


The thing is they just made everything worse with this action and threw whatever reputation they may have had left down the trash heap. They put more focus on the whole question. And they also might have just put themselves in the middle of the First Amendment case.


Insiders said that there are concerns that CBS could be subpoenaed to reveal her source’s identity, which would threaten free press principles.


“This is a company that only plays checkers. They don’t play chess,” the second source said.


“They don’t understand the ramifications of their actions.”

[Kathianne]

Much more from Turley:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4481433-cbs-faces-uproar-after-seizing-investigative-journalists-files/


CBS faces uproar after seizing investigative journalist’s filesBY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/22/24 9:10 AM ET




“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.

[Gunny]

Much more from Turley:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4481433-cbs-faces-uproar-after-seizing-investigative-journalists-files/

My guess would be she was getting too close to something and/or someone. If she's not talking, there's a reason. Then again, being a member of the MSM, she knows better than to say anything :)

[Kathianne]

My guess would be she was getting too close to something and/or someone. If she's not talking, there's a reason. Then again, being a member of the MSM, she knows better than to say anything :)

Pretty clear it was her investigation of Hur report.

[Kathianne]

and 'back to Fox' not for work, but sources trial:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/03/01/judge-holds-herridge-in-contempt-for-refusing-to-reveal-source-n3783885


Judge Holds Herridge in Contempt for Refusing to Reveal SourceED MORRISSEY 10:00 AM | March 01, 2024



National Archives via AP
Do journalists have a constitutional right to keep sources confidential? That question sits at the heart of a dispute over a Fox News report from Catherine Herridge seven years ago. Herridge, who recently got unceremoniously and strangely terminated by CBS News in the Paramount Minus downsizing, used a confidential source within federal law enforcement to publish information from an investigation into a Chinese-American scientist that eventually went nowhere.


Yanping Chen wants to recover damages and punitive awards from the officials who leaked the investigation to Herridge. Herridge refuses to name her source(s) despite a court order to do so. Late yesterday, the federal judge overseeing the case held Herridge in contempt and began fining her $800 a day, although he stayed the ruling to allow Herridge to appeal:


Herridge sat for a deposition in late September but refused to reveal how she obtained the information, citing her First Amendment rights and telling Chen’s lawyer, “I must now disobey the order.”


“The Court does not reach this result lightly,” the judge wrote. “It recognizes the paramount importance of a free press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. Yet the Court also has its own role to play in upholding the law and safeguarding judicial authority.”


Herridge’s attorney, Patrick Philbin, said he and his client “disagree” with the judge’s decision and intend to appeal it.


“Holding a journalist in contempt for protecting a confidential source has a deeply chilling effect on journalism,” Fox News said in a statement. “Fox News Media remains committed to protecting the rights of a free press and freedom of speech and believes this decision should be appealed.”


Judge Christopher R. Cooper did give Herridge time to appeal, so the fines do not begin immediately. Cooper rejected Herridge's offer to pay a nominal $1 daily fine, which Cooper said would not provide any incentive for "ensuring compliance" with this and similar orders. However, Cooper also rejected a plaintiff motion that requested Cooper order that Herridge not be allowed to have third parties pay the fines for her, which means Herridge can get some help if this drags out. Herridge also isn't sitting in a jail cell, at least not yet, which other reporters have had to do in this circumstance. (If she refuses to pay the fine, that could change, of course.)


Herridge already has built-in sympathy. She's a hard-nosed reporter with plenty of connections. She also reports fairly, without bias, and like her former CBS colleague Jan Crawford, has built trust among both conservatives and liberals. (I am a big fan of both.) The Chen report came amid a series of hacks by China against US governmental systems and an ongoing massive theft of intellectual property by the CCP through any means possible. There's no doubt about the valid public interest in sussing out China's activities in the US and those who might be facilitating them or worse.


But given that the probe apparently turned up no actionable violations, Chen seems to have a valid complaint to pursue. Her access to potential target systems, plus questions about Chen's background, had prompted the federal probe, but those investigations are supposed to remain confidential because people are presumed innocent until enough evidence accumulates for a public indictment. Instead, someone leaked the probe to Herridge and transmitted confidential documents including photographs and "images of internal government documents," the Post notes. Fox News published that material, which Chen argues violated her privacy and damaged her reputation. Someone connected to the investigation broke the rules in giving this to Herridge, although those rules don't apply to Herridge or reporters. Chen wants to impose consequences on the leakers, but has to go through Herridge to get to them.


All of this brings us to this question: do reporters have a First Amendment right to keep their sources confidential? And the answer to this is ... no, they do not. Federal courts have customarily avoided the kind of confrontation we see in this case, and states have passed laws granting statutory privilege to refuse to reveal sources. But we occasionally see federal cases come down to this conflict, and reporters have sat in jails for months on end for their refusals.


That doesn't mean a confidential-source privilege would be a bad policy, although Congress has refused to grant it as a statutory privilege, likely for reasons I'll cover later. Regardless, it doesn't exist as a First Amendment right. Cornell Law has a brief but meaty explainer on the First Amendment and the protection of confidential sources:


The Court observed that Congress, as well as state legislatures and state courts, are free to adopt privileges for reporters.5 As for federal courts, Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that the common law generally governs a claim of privilege.6 The federal courts have not resolved whether the common law provides a journalists’ privilege.7


Nor does the status of an entity as a newspaper (or any other form of news medium) protect it from issuance and execution on probable cause of a search warrant for evidence or other material properly sought in a criminal investigation, the Court held in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily.8 The press had argued that to permit searches of newsrooms would threaten the ability to gather, analyze, and disseminate news, because searches would be disruptive, confidential sources would be deterred from coming forward with information because of fear of exposure, reporters would decline to put in writing their information, and internal editorial deliberations would be exposed. The Court thought that First Amendment interests were involved, but it seemed to doubt that the consequences alleged would occur. It observed that the built-in protections of the warrant clause would adequately protect those interests and noted that magistrates could guard against abuses when warrants were sought to search newsrooms by requiring particularizations of the type, scope, and intrusiveness that would be permitted in the searches.9


Essentially, this comes down to a balancing of interests, which is a function of the judiciary in disputes. If Chen didn't have a substantial case or the information needed was trivial to it, Cooper would have refused to order Herridge to respond. Clearly, Cooper thinks that Chen has enough of a case for serious consideration and that Herridge's information is more important to the cause of justice in this case than the damage that would be done in revealing the source who violated the rules. That is a tough call in any instance, and may be even more so in this one given Herridge's reputation as a responsible and reliable journalist.


Consider this from another angle, one that may be a lot less hypothetical these days. Imagine a federal prosecutor -- who wields enormous power -- decides that he despises a particular public or non-public figure, but can't get enough evidence for an indictment. He then decides to leak investigatory documents to a reporter in order to ruin the person's reputation and hopefully force him to cooperate -- or to convince others to come out of the woodwork to provide the evidence that would close the gap for an indictment. And now imagine that the target of this leak campaign turned out to be innocent in the first place. The confidential source in such a scenario wouldn't be a whistleblower, but a manipulator who politicized the process of justice for his own personal ends.


Such a scenario was the basis of the excellent 1981 film Absence of Malice, starring Sally Field, Paul Newman, and Wilford Brimley. We've seen enough prosecutorial and investigatory misconduct over the last few years to make that hypothetical a real possibility. And if it happened to you, would you not want justice from the court over that abuse of power?


That could be what happened with Chen, although we can't know that until we know who leaked the material and why. That wouldn't be Herridge's fault -- she was doing her job -- but that doesn't make the potential injustice and damage any less for Chen. The role of the court is to weigh all of the interests and rule in the interests of justice.


I agree that there is a very serious public interest in keeping sources confidential, which should weigh heavily in the balance in cases such as these. I also believe that there is a very serious public interest in not allowing people in federal law enforcement to manipulate the media and the public with selective leaks from confidential investigations. Given the widespread abuse of anonymous sourcing by the mainstream media these days, I'd be more inclined to let the judiciary balance these interests than grant the media and those in power a blanket immunity from accountability, as imperfect a process as that may be -- and even when a damned fine reporter like Herridge gets caught up in the conflict.

[Gunny]

and 'back to Fox' not for work, but sources trial:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/03/01/judge-holds-herridge-in-contempt-for-refusing-to-reveal-source-n3783885I just read this elsewhere. Age-old question.

Quite the mess. I disagree with the judge. Not because I consider a reporter's sources inviolate. IMO, it depends on the importance and impact of the case and to who. In this case, I see Chen as nothing more than a gold digger looking for a free payday. Besides the fact I think she's a commie spy :). So she wants to damage Herridge's and her source's reputations to make a buck without batting an eye over the fact she claims hers was damaged?

Not buying it. Hopefully an appeals court won't either.