Time Inc. caved, and nobody respects that: Not NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. , who said that he was “deeply disappointed” by the move, pointing out that when NYT had been in the same position it hadn’t revealed a damn thing.
From the Time Inc. statement: “Although we shall comply with the order to turn over the subpoenaed records, we shall continue to support the protection of confidential sources.”
Atrios says, credibility issue much?
When it comes to defending the supposed principles they were fighting for, this seems like a rather bad outcome. The whole point was that to protect the freedom of the press you had to protect the identity of confidential sources. From this perspective Time taints their entire publication — you can’t rely on anyone working for that magazine to protect their sources because the publishers/editors will sell out all of their journalist’s sources.
America Is A Liberal Concept wonders “how Time might have betrayed the trust of historically important whistleblowers, such as Daniel Ellsberg, Mark ‘Deep Throat’ Felt or even Jeffrey Wigand, the tobacco executive who bravely revealed the industry’s duplicity, as dramatized in ‘The Insider.'”
And, on the Huffington Post, Tom Watson boils blogosphere outrage to the simple “Pearlstine = Wuss”
It should be noted that Time is, in fact, complying with the law; and whoever the source is who is being protected did, in fact, commit a crime. But, would you want to be an anonymous source for Time, Inc. right now?