BREAKING: Catherine Herridge, Sharyl Attkisson Testify Before House About Threats To Press Freedom

Forbes Breaking News

The House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the PRESS Act and press freedom.  Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:  https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript   Stay Connected Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes More From Forbes:  http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00 The subcommittee will come to order.

00:00:03 Without objection, the chair is authorized

00:00:05 to declare recess at any time.

00:00:06 We welcome everybody to today's hearing

00:00:10 on a free press and protecting journalists.

00:00:12 I'll remind everybody that the guests

00:00:15 in the chamber are guests and you're free to be here,

00:00:19 but this is no audience participation in the hearing.

00:00:23 This is a hearing and we're going

00:00:25 to conduct it accordingly.

00:00:27 I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

00:00:30 Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press

00:00:34 and that cannot be limited without being lost.

00:00:37 Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them

00:00:41 in 1786 and they are still true today.

00:00:43 The First Amendment

00:00:45 to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press

00:00:47 and prohibits the federal government

00:00:48 from making any law abridging that freedom.

00:00:51 In his concurrence to the New York Times

00:00:54 versus the United States, Justice Hugo Black stated,

00:00:57 "In the First Amendment,

00:00:58 the founding fathers gave the free press the protection it

00:01:00 must have to fulfill its essential role

00:01:02 in our democracy.

00:01:03 The press was to serve the governed, not the governors."

00:01:07 The framers of the Constitution hailed the freedom

00:01:09 of the press as the most important political liberty

00:01:11 and the keystone upon which all our other freedoms rely.

00:01:15 As is still the case today, journalists are often the first

00:01:18 to expose government abuse, waste, fraud, and encroachments

00:01:21 on the personal freedoms we hold dear.

00:01:23 Sadly, the freedom of the press is under attack

00:01:26 in our country from multiple angles.

00:01:28 The White House, activist judges,

00:01:31 and mainstream media networks.

00:01:32 For example, the Obama White House illegally spied

00:01:36 on investigative journalist Cheryl Atkinson

00:01:38 by allegedly hacking into her cell phone and computer

00:01:40 to determine the identity of a confidential source.

00:01:43 We also saw the Obama administration take an

00:01:46 adversarial position regarding freedom of the press

00:01:49 when it sought to silence anyone blowing the whistle

00:01:52 on the federal government's waste and abuse

00:01:54 by seizing the phone records

00:01:55 of Associated Press reporters and editors

00:01:58 who use source materials to write stories.

00:02:00 The phone records seized were not just those owned

00:02:02 by the Associated Press,

00:02:03 but also personal home and cell phones.

00:02:05 The seizure of these records was such an alarming step

00:02:09 by the federal government that a coalition

00:02:11 of 50 news organizations, including ABC, CNN,

00:02:14 the New York Times, and the Washington Post,

00:02:17 submitted a letter of protest

00:02:19 to then-Attorney General Eric Holder about the raid,

00:02:21 which stated that the administration's action called

00:02:24 into question the very integrity of the Department

00:02:26 of Justice policies toward the press and its ability

00:02:29 to balance on its own its police powers

00:02:32 against the First Amendment rights of the news media

00:02:34 and the public's interest in reporting

00:02:36 on all manner of conduct.

00:02:37 The Obama administration's war on a free press showed us

00:02:40 that executive interference is a chilling effect

00:02:42 that disincentivizes whistleblowers and sources

00:02:45 from coming forward with critical information.

00:02:48 That chilling and eventually freezing

00:02:51 out effect harms the quality and integrity

00:02:53 of journalism on a major scale.

00:02:55 Meanwhile, we have seen the Biden-Garland Justice Department

00:02:58 arrest and prosecute journalist Steve Baker, who was reporting

00:03:02 from the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th on the events

00:03:04 that took place inside the Capitol.

00:03:06 We also recently saw a federal court order investigative

00:03:11 journalist Catherine Herridge

00:03:12 to identify a confidential source and then hold her

00:03:15 in contempt when she exercised her First Amendment right

00:03:19 to maintain the source's confidentiality.

00:03:23 First Amendment advocates on both sides

00:03:24 of the aisle have warned that government actions

00:03:26 such as this could have devastating consequences

00:03:28 for a free press.

00:03:30 Around that same time,

00:03:31 CBS News terminated Ms. Herridge's employment

00:03:34 and took unprecedented actions with regards

00:03:37 to her belongings, including source materials.

00:03:41 CBS News officials reportedly boxed up and seized some

00:03:45 of the materials in her office,

00:03:46 including her investigative files and laptop computer,

00:03:49 with the intent to search through items

00:03:52 to segregate materials Ms. Herridge developed

00:03:54 or worked on for CBS News.

00:03:57 CBS News plans searched through Ms. Herridge's materials

00:04:00 threatened to trample upon her First Amendment rights

00:04:02 and could have divulged confidential sources stemming

00:04:06 from her previous work with other networks.

00:04:09 Along those same lines, we have also seen the federal

00:04:12 government seek to impermissibly shape news stories,

00:04:15 even coercing social media companies to censor

00:04:18 and remove content on their platforms relating

00:04:20 to foreign influence peddling by the president and his family.

00:04:23 Today's hearing is about defending our fundamental

00:04:26 liberty and protecting journalists

00:04:28 and their sources from these attacks.

00:04:29 We will examine the federal government's infringement

00:04:32 on the freedom of the press and examine the prospects

00:04:35 for a federal shield law.

00:04:37 On July 19, 2023, the House Committee on the Judiciary,

00:04:43 with a vote of 23 to 0 --

00:04:44 that doesn't often happen in the House Judiciary Committee --

00:04:49 23 to 0, favorably reported on the Protect Reports

00:04:53 from Exploitative State Spying, or PRESS Act.

00:04:56 In January of this year, the full House passed the PRESS Act

00:05:00 by a voice vote.

00:05:01 The PRESS Act was written to prohibit the federal government

00:05:05 from compelling journalists to identify a source,

00:05:08 as well as any records, contents of a communication,

00:05:11 documents, or information obtained or created

00:05:13 by journalists in the course of their work.

00:05:15 The significance of the PRESS Act cannot be understated.

00:05:19 It ensures a free press, independent

00:05:23 from an executive branch that seeks to attack

00:05:25 or harass journalists in order

00:05:26 to identify their confidential sources.

00:05:29 Now that the House has done its job and stood up to fight

00:05:32 for the freedom of the press, it is now the Senate's turn

00:05:35 to take up this legislation

00:05:36 to continue Congress's commitment

00:05:38 to protecting our fundamental freedoms.

00:05:40 Our constitutional guarantee of a free press is under attack.

00:05:43 It is our job to stand up for that right

00:05:46 and protect journalists and their sources.

00:05:48 I look forward to hearing from all

00:05:50 of our distinguished witnesses today,

00:05:51 who will all bring unique personal

00:05:54 and professional perspectives to this important issue.

00:05:56 Please note that a joint schedule

00:05:59 of Congress is scheduled for 11 o'clock a.m.,

00:06:02 and the committee will recess for the duration of that session

00:06:04 and gavel back in shortly after.

00:06:06 I now yield to the ranking member

00:06:09 for her opening statement.

00:06:10 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:06:13 The necessity for and guarantee of a free press is one

00:06:17 of the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic,

00:06:20 predating and inspiring both our Constitution

00:06:24 and the First Amendment.

00:06:25 We all know that a democracy only truly works

00:06:28 when its citizens are properly informed,

00:06:31 and a free press contributes to this goal by ensuring truth

00:06:35 and accountability from those in power.

00:06:37 A free press informs the American people

00:06:40 of important policy issues and government actions

00:06:43 that may impact their lives

00:06:44 and crucially can reveal incompetence, corruption,

00:06:48 deceit, fraud, or bad faith by political candidates

00:06:53 and government officials.

00:06:54 Thus, attempts by government actors and would-be leaders

00:06:57 to undermine the press,

00:06:58 whether by promoting conspiracy theories and lies,

00:07:01 attacking members of the press with whom they disagree,

00:07:04 or undermining the press's ability

00:07:06 to obtain vital information are an assault on the pillars

00:07:10 of our democratic foundation.

00:07:13 One particularly pernicious way this occurs is

00:07:15 when the government seeks to compel journalists

00:07:17 to disclose the identity of confidential sources.

00:07:20 And I think it's important at the outset here to talk

00:07:23 about the different ways where the government can compel.

00:07:27 It's one thing for the government to seek access

00:07:31 to confidential sources.

00:07:34 It's another when a court is enforcing the law

00:07:37 that is written because Congress hasn't acted

00:07:40 to create a shield law.

00:07:41 So confidential sources provide crucial information to reporters

00:07:45 that helps them to share full and impactful stories

00:07:48 with the public.

00:07:48 And government attempts to undermine the confidentiality

00:07:51 of those sources erodes the press's ability

00:07:54 to perform that function.

00:07:55 If the press cannot protect its sources,

00:07:58 then important truths may never come to light and Americans

00:08:01 in our democracy suffer.

00:08:02 Unfortunately, under both Republican

00:08:05 and Democratic administrations going back decades,

00:08:08 we've seen the government in attempts to crack

00:08:10 down on leaks, seize phone and email records from journalists

00:08:14 or seek to compel them to reveal the identities of their sources.

00:08:18 For example, the Trump administration's Department

00:08:20 of Justice seized phone records

00:08:22 from three Washington Post reporters and tried

00:08:25 to obtain their emails in an attempt

00:08:27 to identify confidential sources.

00:08:29 The Trump DOJ similarly attempted to obtain these types

00:08:33 of records from reporters at CNN and the New York Times.

00:08:36 And that's of course on top

00:08:38 of that administration's other troubling threats

00:08:40 to press freedom, such as tracking, detaining

00:08:43 and interrogating journalists reporting on conditions

00:08:46 at the US-Mexico border.

00:08:48 In response to these and other instances,

00:08:51 the House four times since 2007 passed

00:08:55 with overwhelming bipartisan support

00:08:57 of federal reporter shield law.

00:08:59 That's legislation to protect journalists

00:09:02 and prevent the government from compelling them

00:09:04 to reveal their confidential sources with certain exceptions.

00:09:08 In fact, former vice president Mike Pence, then a member

00:09:10 of this committee first introduced

00:09:12 such legislation in 2005.

00:09:14 More recently, representatives Kevin Kiley

00:09:17 and Jamie Raskin helped spearhead passage of HR 4250,

00:09:20 the Protect Reporters

00:09:22 from Exploitative State Spying Act or Press Act.

00:09:25 And as mentioned, that bill passed the House this past

00:09:28 January unanimously by voice vote under suspension

00:09:32 of the rules.

00:09:32 And that is, as the chairman noted

00:09:34 after this committee had reported it favorably,

00:09:37 by a bipartisan 23 to 0 vote.

00:09:40 The Press Act would, among other things,

00:09:43 create a qualified federal statutory privilege

00:09:46 that protects journalists from being compelled

00:09:48 by a federal entity to reveal confidential sources

00:09:51 and information.

00:09:52 The bill also protects third party service providers,

00:09:55 such as telecommunications carriers

00:09:57 and interactive computer services from being compelled

00:10:00 by the government to reveal information

00:10:02 on a journalist's account or device.

00:10:05 Unfortunately, despite the House repeatedly

00:10:07 and with strong bipartisan support passing some form

00:10:11 of federal reporter shield legislation,

00:10:13 the Senate has yet to act.

00:10:15 Today's hearing should be an opportunity

00:10:19 to spur the Senate to action.

00:10:20 We're concerned that our Republican colleagues appear

00:10:24 to have squandered that chance at a substantive hearing

00:10:26 and instead are trying to crank

00:10:28 up some right wing conspiracy theories.

00:10:30 But make no mistake, we intend to move forward

00:10:34 and try to promote both the Press Act

00:10:37 and our constitutional protections.

00:10:39 There is, of course, little evidence of ideological bias

00:10:42 at CBS News, as has been suggested.

00:10:45 And even if those allegations were true,

00:10:46 Congress would risk exceeding its constitutional authority

00:10:50 by intervening.

00:10:51 Private news organizations, whether CBS, MSNBC,

00:10:55 or Fox speak through their journalist employees.

00:10:58 If Congress tried to punish or shape news coverage,

00:11:02 either directly through legislation

00:11:03 or indirectly through a pressure campaign,

00:11:06 it would run afoul of the spirit, if not the letter

00:11:09 of the First Amendment,

00:11:10 and potentially violate the news organization's free speech rights

00:11:15 and its right to editorial control over its own content.

00:11:19 So, today we hope to inquire further from our witnesses

00:11:25 about the importance of a federal shield act

00:11:28 and why it is long past time for Congress to enact it.

00:11:32 Our democracy is already under assault on numerous fronts,

00:11:35 and we should not be adding fuel to the fire.

00:11:38 So, let's focus instead on something

00:11:39 that would actually protect press freedom,

00:11:41 would be completely within our Article I authority and duties.

00:11:46 And let's talk about the critical need

00:11:49 for a federal reporter's shield legislation.

00:11:51 I thank our witnesses for being here, and I yield back.

00:11:53 [ Inaudible ]

00:12:05 >> Ready will be in order.

00:12:07 I thank the ranking member, the gentlelady from Pennsylvania,

00:12:11 Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.

00:12:13 I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan,

00:12:16 for his opening statement.

00:12:17 >> I thank the chairman.

00:12:18 It's not just the press that's under attack.

00:12:20 Every single liberty we enjoy

00:12:21 under the First Amendment's been assaulted

00:12:23 in the last couple years.

00:12:24 I mean, you think about it.

00:12:25 Your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble,

00:12:27 your right to petition the government, free press,

00:12:29 free speech, every right we enjoy.

00:12:31 Americans were, a couple years ago,

00:12:32 Americans were told they couldn't go

00:12:33 to church on Sunday.

00:12:34 Think about that.

00:12:35 Two and a half years ago,

00:12:38 I spoke to the New Mexico Republican Party

00:12:40 in Amarillo, Texas, because they had to go to Texas

00:12:42 to get the freedom to assemble, because they couldn't do it

00:12:44 in their own darn state, where they pay taxes,

00:12:46 because their governor wouldn't let them.

00:12:47 Your right to petition the government.

00:12:49 You want to petition your member of Congress?

00:12:51 You couldn't do it in Congress,

00:12:52 because the speaker wouldn't let you in.

00:12:55 Your own darn capital that you pay for.

00:12:57 But the most important two are free press and free speech.

00:13:01 We're going to hear about the press today,

00:13:03 what's happened to two of our witnesses.

00:13:05 How freedom of the press,

00:13:07 why they went after Ms. Atkinson,

00:13:09 what happened to Ms. Harridge.

00:13:11 This is scary.

00:13:13 And then just a couple weeks ago,

00:13:15 a couple weeks ago, I went to the argument,

00:13:16 and this should frighten us all.

00:13:18 I went to the argument in front of the Supreme Court

00:13:21 We had a justice on the United States Supreme Court.

00:13:23 This is the big censorship case.

00:13:24 It's something this committee spent a lot of time on,

00:13:27 where big government pressures, big tech,

00:13:28 and big academia to censor speech,

00:13:31 not just conservative speech, all speech.

00:13:34 That's frightening.

00:13:35 And we went to the argument in front of the Supreme Court,

00:13:38 and one of the justices said to the solicitor general

00:13:41 from Louisiana, "Counselor, your position

00:13:43 has the First Amendment hamstringing the government."

00:13:47 That's exactly what it's supposed to do, for goodness sake.

00:13:50 So this is about the First Amendment.

00:13:53 And a free press is essential

00:13:56 to having a robust First Amendment

00:13:57 and free debate in our culture.

00:14:00 And if you don't have free debate,

00:14:02 you can't settle your disputes by arguing and debating.

00:14:05 The alternative is frightening.

00:14:08 So there is no more important hearing than this.

00:14:10 And I wanna thank our chairman,

00:14:11 and I really wanna thank our four witnesses for being here.

00:14:14 This is of critical importance.

00:14:16 And you know what?

00:14:17 This is why we gotta pass the Press Shield Act.

00:14:20 The House has got it.

00:14:21 Let's hope the Senate and the White House

00:14:22 can figure this out.

00:14:23 We passed this so we don't have this stuff

00:14:25 happening to misheritage that's happening right now.

00:14:28 We actually had a situation in this committee room.

00:14:30 So we got some members of this committee

00:14:32 who were there that day,

00:14:33 where my colleagues on the other side,

00:14:35 we had Matt Taibbi on the witness stand,

00:14:37 and we had colleagues on the other side

00:14:39 pressuring him to divulge his sources.

00:14:42 In a hearing in Congress, we're gonna...

00:14:45 I don't know, to me, that's scary as well.

00:14:48 So this is a critically important hearing

00:14:50 with some great witnesses.

00:14:51 I look forward to hearing their testimony

00:14:53 and the questions that follow.

00:14:54 And with that, I yield back.

00:14:55 - I thank the chairman.

00:14:57 I'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,

00:15:00 Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.

00:15:02 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:15:06 Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last two decades,

00:15:09 repeated overzealous prosecution of leaks to the press

00:15:14 have made it clear that Congress needs to enact

00:15:16 a federal reporter's shield law.

00:15:18 Congress must protect journalists from being compelled

00:15:20 to reveal their confidential sources

00:15:23 in order to ensure the free flow of information

00:15:25 and matters related to the public interest.

00:15:27 During the 117th Congress,

00:15:30 when I was chairman of the committee,

00:15:32 we came together in a bipartisan vote

00:15:34 to pass the Press Act, which would protect journalists

00:15:37 and their confidential sources from compelled disclosure,

00:15:40 except in certain rare circumstances.

00:15:43 It later passed the House in similar bipartisan fashion.

00:15:46 Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill.

00:15:49 I was pleased, however, when the committee,

00:15:50 under Chairman Jordan's leadership,

00:15:52 built on this strong action and moved the Press Act

00:15:54 once again in this Congress

00:15:56 in a unanimous vote of 23 to nothing.

00:16:00 It again passed the House by voice vote.

00:16:03 I think even a casual observer of the 118th Congress

00:16:06 understands just how rare it is for me, Chairman Jordan,

00:16:10 and practically the entire House,

00:16:12 all to agree on the need for the same piece of legislation.

00:16:15 We have repeatedly come together

00:16:17 to advance an important bill on a bipartisan basis,

00:16:20 and we continue to share the goal

00:16:22 of seeing this legislation become law.

00:16:25 That is why it is disappointing that,

00:16:27 according to news reports,

00:16:28 this hearing has not really been called

00:16:30 to serve as a forum for building greater support for the bill

00:16:33 as the title of the hearing might suggest.

00:16:36 Instead, it appears that its true purpose

00:16:38 is to provide a forum to discuss allegations

00:16:41 that Chairman Jordan has made surrounding the termination

00:16:43 of one of our witnesses by a news organization

00:16:47 and to advance a false narrative about media bias.

00:16:50 I am sympathetic to anyone

00:16:51 who's been abruptly laid off from the job,

00:16:54 and I understand the resentment

00:16:56 that someone can feel against their former employer.

00:16:58 In fact, CBS laid off 800 people,

00:17:03 one of whom happened to be a close personal friend of mine.

00:17:07 But even if any allegations of so-called political bias

00:17:10 I made today are true, and to be clear,

00:17:12 I have no reason to believe that they are,

00:17:16 Congress is not the proper forum for these personal grievances

00:17:18 to be aired or resolved.

00:17:20 As we listen to the testimony today,

00:17:23 we should remember that news media organizations

00:17:25 have their own First Amendment rights,

00:17:27 which include the right to exercise editorial judgment

00:17:30 about what does and does not get reported as news.

00:17:33 News media organizations also ultimately speak or act

00:17:38 through their employees and agents.

00:17:40 Barring some other unlawful reason for termination,

00:17:44 like race or sex discrimination,

00:17:47 Congress does not have the authority

00:17:49 to meddle in the relationship between reporters

00:17:52 and their employing news organizations,

00:17:54 especially if it is to intervene in a purported conflict

00:17:58 over what story to investigate or not to investigate.

00:18:01 To do so would, in my view,

00:18:03 run afoul of the First Amendment.

00:18:06 Indeed, some might even say that this very hearing

00:18:09 is an example of the government jawboning the news media

00:18:11 over its coverage or lack of coverage

00:18:13 of a particular subject and an improper intrusion

00:18:16 into the affairs of the press.

00:18:18 If the history of overwhelming bipartisan support

00:18:21 for the Press Act is any indication,

00:18:24 I would hope that we have universal agreement on the dais

00:18:27 that the government should respect

00:18:28 the independence of the free press

00:18:30 and that we should continue our work to protect journalists

00:18:33 from being compelled to reveal their sources.

00:18:35 That is where our focus should properly lay.

00:18:38 We should be jawboning the real barrier

00:18:39 to achieving important protection for press freedom,

00:18:42 the United States Senate, which, for the fourth time,

00:18:45 is sitting on a Federal Reporters Shield legislation

00:18:51 that the House passed in an overwhelmingly

00:18:53 bipartisan fashion.

00:18:55 Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

00:18:56 and I yield back the balance of my time.

00:19:00 -I thank the ranking member for his opening statement.

00:19:03 Without objection, all other opening statements

00:19:05 will be included in the record.

00:19:07 We will now introduce today's witnesses.

00:19:10 Ms. Catherine Harridge.

00:19:12 Ms. Harridge is an award-winning journalist

00:19:15 who most recently served as a senior

00:19:16 investigative correspondent for CBS News from 2019 to 2024.

00:19:22 Previously, she served as the chief intelligence

00:19:24 correspondent for Fox News from 1996 to 2019.

00:19:30 Ms. Mary Cavallaro.

00:19:32 Ms. Cavallaro is the chief broadcast officer

00:19:34 for the News and Broadcast Department at SAG-AFTRA,

00:19:38 a position she has held since 2010.

00:19:41 Ms. Cavallaro is responsible for overseeing the negotiation

00:19:44 and administration of over 250 labor agreements

00:19:48 with network and local broadcast employers nationwide.

00:19:52 Ms. Cheryl Atkinson.

00:19:54 Ms. Atkinson is a five-time Emmy Award-winning journalist

00:19:57 and recipient of the Edward R.

00:19:59 Murrow Award for investigative reporting.

00:20:02 She has been a journalist for 30 years

00:20:04 and is currently the managing editor

00:20:06 and host of "Full Measure."

00:20:08 Ms. Nadine Farid Johnson.

00:20:11 Ms. Farid Johnson is the policy director

00:20:13 of the Knight First Amendment Institute

00:20:14 at Columbia University.

00:20:16 She previously worked at PEN America, the State Department,

00:20:20 and in private practice as a patent litigator.

00:20:23 We will begin by swearing you in.

00:20:25 Would you please rise and raise your right hand?

00:20:28 Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury

00:20:33 that the testimony you are about to give

00:20:35 is true and correct to the best of your knowledge,

00:20:37 information, and belief, so help you God?

00:20:41 Let the record reflect that the witnesses

00:20:42 have answered in the affirmative.

00:20:44 Thank you, and please be seated.

00:20:46 Please know that your written testimony

00:20:48 will be entered into the record in its entirety.

00:20:50 Accordingly, we ask that you summarize

00:20:52 your testimony in five minutes.

00:20:55 Ms. Harridge, you may begin.

00:20:57 -Good morning.

00:21:00 Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler,

00:21:02 Chairman Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon

00:21:05 and members of the subcommittee.

00:21:07 I'm here today with a deep sense of gratitude and humility.

00:21:11 I appreciate the subcommittee taking the time to focus again

00:21:14 on the importance of protecting reporter sources

00:21:18 and the vital safeguards provided by the PRESS Act.

00:21:21 As you know, in February, I was held in contempt of court

00:21:24 for refusing to disclose my confidential sources

00:21:28 on a national security story.

00:21:30 I think my current situation can help

00:21:32 put the importance of the PRESS Act into context.

00:21:36 One of our children recently asked me if I would go to jail,

00:21:40 if we would lose our house,

00:21:42 and if we would lose our family savings

00:21:44 to protect my reporting sources.

00:21:46 I wanted to answer that in this United States,

00:21:49 where we say we value democracy

00:21:51 and the role of a vibrant and free press,

00:21:54 that it was impossible,

00:21:55 but I could not offer that assurance.

00:21:58 The Bipartisan PRESS Act,

00:21:59 which came out of this House committee,

00:22:02 would put an end to the sort of legal jeopardy

00:22:04 that I have experienced firsthand in the federal courts.

00:22:08 And without the legislation,

00:22:09 more journalists will run at the uncertainty

00:22:12 of the contempt gauntlet in the future.

00:22:14 This legislation will provide protections

00:22:17 for every working journalist in the United States,

00:22:20 now and for the next generation.

00:22:23 The legislation provides strong protections

00:22:25 at the federal level for reporters and their sources.

00:22:28 It would block litigants and federal government

00:22:30 from prying into a reporter's files,

00:22:33 except when there's an imminent threat of violence,

00:22:35 including terrorism and in defamation cases.

00:22:38 At the state level, similar rules are already in place

00:22:42 to protect press freedom.

00:22:44 It is my sincere hope that the passage of the PRESS Act

00:22:47 will provide similar protections at the federal level.

00:22:51 I hope that I am the last journalist

00:22:53 who has to spend two years in the federal courts

00:22:57 fighting to protect my confidential sources.

00:23:00 My current situation arises from a Privacy Act lawsuit.

00:23:04 I am only a witness in the case.

00:23:07 It is not common for these cases to reach the stage

00:23:10 of holding a reporter in contempt.

00:23:12 But when such cases happen, they have profound consequences,

00:23:17 impacting every journalist in the United States.

00:23:20 Forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources

00:23:23 would have a crippling effect on investigative journalism

00:23:27 because without reliable assurances of confidentiality,

00:23:31 sources will not come forward.

00:23:33 The First Amendment provides protections for the press

00:23:36 because an informed electorate

00:23:38 is at the foundation of our democracy.

00:23:41 If confidential sources are not protected,

00:23:44 I fear investigative journalism is dead.

00:23:48 Each day, I feel the weight of that responsibility.

00:23:52 As you know, I was held in contempt of court

00:23:54 for upholding the basic journalistic principle

00:23:56 of maintaining the pledge of confidentiality to my sources.

00:24:00 I have complete respect for the federal court

00:24:02 and the judicial process,

00:24:04 and I'm not here to litigate the case.

00:24:07 It will play out before the appellate court

00:24:09 in Washington, D.C.

00:24:11 But the fact that I have been fighting in the courts

00:24:13 for two years and that I am now facing

00:24:16 potentially crippling fines of $800 a day

00:24:20 to protect my reporting sources

00:24:22 underscores the vital importance of the PRESS Act.

00:24:26 When you go through major life events,

00:24:28 as I have in recent weeks,

00:24:30 losing your job, losing your company health insurance,

00:24:34 having your reporting files seized by your former employer

00:24:38 and being held in contempt of court gives you clarity.

00:24:42 The First Amendment, the protection of confidential sources

00:24:46 and a free press are my guiding principles.

00:24:49 They are my North Star.

00:24:51 When I was laid off in February,

00:24:53 an incident reinforced in my mind

00:24:56 the importance of protecting confidential sources.

00:24:59 CBS News locked me out of the building

00:25:02 and seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files,

00:25:06 including confidential source information.

00:25:08 Multiple sources said they were concerned

00:25:11 that by working with me to expose government corruption

00:25:14 and misconduct, they would be identified and exposed.

00:25:19 I pushed back, and with the public support

00:25:21 of my union, SAG-AFTRA, the records were returned.

00:25:25 CBS News' decision to seize my reporting records

00:25:29 crossed a red line that I believe

00:25:32 should never be crossed again

00:25:33 by any media organization in the future.

00:25:37 The litigation and being held in contempt

00:25:39 have taken a toll on me and my career.

00:25:43 This is not a battle you can fight alone.

00:25:45 I am grateful for the support of fellow journalists

00:25:48 and multiple First Amendment organizations,

00:25:51 including the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom,

00:25:54 the Freedom of the Press Foundation,

00:25:57 the Coalition for Women in Journalism,

00:25:59 the Knight First Amendment Institute,

00:26:01 the Society of Professional Journalists,

00:26:04 as well as the Columbia Journalism School,

00:26:06 of which I am a graduate.

00:26:08 I have also been fortunate to have the support

00:26:10 from my former employer as I continue to fight this case.

00:26:14 Not many journalists could count on a former employer,

00:26:17 in this case, Fox News,

00:26:19 to support a costly and vigorous defense

00:26:21 of the First Amendment.

00:26:23 That is why the PRESS Act comes at the right time

00:26:26 when independent journalism and news platforms

00:26:29 are expanding opportunities for reporting diverse voices

00:26:33 that strengthen our democracy.

00:26:35 I know I join many journalists who are encouraged

00:26:38 by the recent comments of the Senate Majority Leader,

00:26:40 Chuck Schumer, who said he hopes to have the legislation

00:26:43 through the Senate and on the President's desk this year.

00:26:47 I deeply appreciate the committee's commitment

00:26:49 to this legislation and holding this public hearing.

00:26:52 Thank you.

00:26:54 -Thank you, Ms. Harridge.

00:26:55 Ms. Cavallaro, you may begin.

00:26:57 -Good morning.

00:27:00 Thank you, Committee Chairman Jordan,

00:27:02 Subcommittee Chairman Roy,

00:27:04 Committee Ranking Member Nadler,

00:27:06 Subcommittee Ranking Member Scanlon,

00:27:09 and distinguished members of this subcommittee

00:27:11 for this opportunity to testify on fighting for a free press,

00:27:15 protecting journalists and their sources.

00:27:18 My name is Mary Cavallaro.

00:27:19 I serve as the Chief Broadcast Officer for SAG-AFTRA,

00:27:22 a national union of over 160,000 members

00:27:26 that represents professionals

00:27:28 in the entertainment and media industries.

00:27:31 I am responsible for overseeing

00:27:33 the union's collective bargaining agreements

00:27:35 with our news and broadcast employers across the country.

00:27:39 I was invited here today

00:27:41 for the purpose of providing testimony

00:27:43 in support of the most basic of First Amendment principles --

00:27:47 protecting journalists from being compelled

00:27:49 to reveal their sources

00:27:50 and the critical nature

00:27:52 of the confidential source relationship.

00:27:55 Government intrusion upon the relationship

00:27:57 between a reporter and their sources

00:27:59 undermines the foundation of the freedom of press.

00:28:03 A free press is essential to our democracy.

00:28:06 To quote Walter Cronkite, a longtime SAG-AFTRA member,

00:28:09 "Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy.

00:28:13 It is democracy."

00:28:15 While SAG-AFTRA's core responsibility

00:28:17 is to negotiate, administer,

00:28:18 and enforce the collective bargaining agreements

00:28:20 under which our members work,

00:28:22 the union is also charged

00:28:24 with advocating on behalf of our members

00:28:27 for legislation that directly impacts their work

00:28:30 and their profession.

00:28:32 SAG-AFTRA's legislative work

00:28:33 has recently focused on artificial intelligence,

00:28:37 protecting an intellectual property,

00:28:39 and restricting non-compete clauses in employment contracts,

00:28:43 all of which are important initiatives.

00:28:46 And for decades, the union has enthusiastically supported

00:28:49 the passage of a federal Reporter Shield Law.

00:28:53 We thank the House Judiciary Committee

00:28:55 for its leadership on this issue

00:28:57 and its bipartisan,

00:28:59 unanimous passage of the Press Act at the committee level.

00:29:03 We also thank the entire United States House of Representatives

00:29:07 for its unanimous passage of this vital legislation

00:29:10 in January of 2024

00:29:13 and call upon the United States Senate

00:29:15 to expeditiously pass this legislation

00:29:19 and send it to President Biden for signature.

00:29:23 If signed into law, the Press Act would establish

00:29:25 the first federal Press Shield Law in United States history

00:29:30 and will significantly strengthen press freedom

00:29:32 by safeguarding journalists and their confidential sources.

00:29:37 The Press Act creates a federal statutory privilege

00:29:41 to shield journalists from being compelled

00:29:43 to reveal their confidential sources

00:29:45 and prevents federal law enforcement agencies

00:29:48 from abusing subpoena power

00:29:50 to access journalists' email and phone records.

00:29:54 This long-overdue legislation

00:29:56 represents a significant leap forward,

00:29:59 not just for journalists,

00:30:00 but for the sanctity of journalism itself

00:30:03 and for the constitutional right to freedom of the press.

00:30:07 SAG-AFTRA stands in solidarity with journalists,

00:30:10 their employers, and press advocacy groups

00:30:12 who share the common goal

00:30:14 of a federal shield law for journalists.

00:30:17 The Press Act is bipartisan legislation

00:30:20 that guarantees and protects

00:30:21 our most basic of First Amendment principles.

00:30:24 The freedom of the press to disseminate information

00:30:27 to the public free from government interference

00:30:30 of any kind is essential to our democracy.

00:30:33 Protecting a journalist's relationship

00:30:35 with a source is critical to allowing stories to be told

00:30:39 and essential to holding our elected officials

00:30:42 and others to account for their actions.

00:30:45 The press is America's watchdog

00:30:48 responsible for serving the public interest

00:30:50 by working to uncover and investigate government

00:30:53 and corporate abuse, overreach, and malfeasance.

00:30:56 Any form of government control over journalists

00:30:59 could shield the instinct of a potential source

00:31:02 to come forward and tell their stories to journalists,

00:31:05 depriving the American people of critical information

00:31:08 and the ability to hold those in power publicly accountable.

00:31:12 Recent events and ongoing litigation

00:31:14 involving journalists and their employers

00:31:17 and their shared concern for protecting sources

00:31:20 have created some renewed interest

00:31:22 in energy around this issue.

00:31:24 SAG-AFTRA is hopeful that this interest in energy

00:31:28 will be used in a productive and nonpartisan way

00:31:31 to move the Press Act forward.

00:31:34 Thank you again for this opportunity

00:31:36 to speak before the subcommittee today,

00:31:37 and I look forward to your questions.

00:31:40 -Thank you, Ms. Cavallaro.

00:31:42 Ms. Atkinson, you may begin.

00:31:45 -Good morning. It's an honor to be here

00:31:46 and also to get to meet Katherine, finally.

00:31:49 In decades of reporting nationally at CNN, CBS, PBS,

00:31:53 and for the last nine years on my TV show, Full Measure,

00:31:56 countless news stories that I broke or facets of them

00:31:59 could not have been reported without sources

00:32:02 whose identities needed to be protected.

00:32:04 To name just a few, Enron, BP oil spill, TARP bank bailout,

00:32:10 follow-the-money investigations on taxpayers' spending,

00:32:12 congressional oversight, congressional fundraising,

00:32:15 prescription drug and vaccine dangers, Haiti earthquake aid,

00:32:19 K Street lobbying, green energy failures,

00:32:22 waste and fraud at the Red Cross,

00:32:24 Firestone Tires, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious.

00:32:27 The last 12 stories I mentioned,

00:32:30 thanks to some information provided by sources

00:32:32 who could not be quoted by name,

00:32:34 received recognition from the Emmy Awards.

00:32:37 Multiply that by thousands of reporters and countless stories,

00:32:41 and it's fair to argue that a lot of important facts

00:32:44 would never have been exposed

00:32:45 if journalists couldn't ensure protection

00:32:47 of our sensitive sources' identities.

00:32:50 Today's managed information landscape

00:32:52 makes it more difficult for journalists and our sources

00:32:55 to report on ethical lapses, wrongdoing, and crimes.

00:32:58 More often than not, the truth-teller, when named,

00:33:01 is smeared and ruined while the wrongdoers carry on.

00:33:05 They escape accountability and may even get promoted.

00:33:08 They've seen what's happened to Assange and Snowden.

00:33:11 Their earth-shattering revelations quickly eclipsed

00:33:13 by organized efforts to distract by controversializing them.

00:33:18 So it makes sense to ask, what's the impact

00:33:20 if we can no longer assure our sources

00:33:22 that we can protect their identities?

00:33:24 It's not a new concern.

00:33:26 Years ago, after adverse court decisions

00:33:28 started coming down on this front, I was at CBS,

00:33:31 and we began having to consider whether a confidential source

00:33:35 in a story would be okay with ultimately

00:33:37 having his identity revealed if a judge ordered it.

00:33:42 Obviously, the answer was often no.

00:33:44 I could no longer provide assurances to a whistleblower

00:33:47 who feared for his career or safety

00:33:49 that I could guarantee protection of his identity.

00:33:52 Some stories still got done, but many became non-starters.

00:33:56 There's no way to quantify with any certainty what we've lost,

00:33:59 but I don't think there are many investigative reporters

00:34:01 who would say it's not having an impact.

00:34:03 There are ideas to help, such as the PRESS Act,

00:34:06 that would generally bar federal agencies

00:34:08 from forcing telecommunications firms

00:34:10 to turn over records belonging to journalists,

00:34:13 but it's important to note that some of the most egregious

00:34:16 intrusions on press freedoms don't happen that way.

00:34:19 Our intelligence agencies have been working --

00:34:22 pardon me.

00:34:24 This is important. I need to clear my throat.

00:34:26 Our intelligence agencies have been working hand-in-hand

00:34:33 with telecommunications firms for decades,

00:34:37 with billions of dollars in dark contracts

00:34:39 and secretive arrangements.

00:34:41 They don't need to ask for permission

00:34:43 to access journalist records

00:34:44 or those of Congress or regular citizens.

00:34:47 Current efforts to reauthorize Section 702

00:34:50 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

00:34:51 relate to this.

00:34:53 There's a lengthy record of government surveillance abuses

00:34:55 to be found in just the little we've been able to learn about.

00:35:00 Intelligence officials have misled Congress

00:35:02 about surveilling US citizens,

00:35:04 even spying on journalists and political figures,

00:35:06 their staff, and allies.

00:35:08 It's been a known problem for decades.

00:35:10 An Inspector General report in 2020

00:35:13 found the FBI violated Woods Procedure safeguards

00:35:16 and every single wiretap audited.

00:35:20 Pardon me.

00:35:21 In just 29 FISA applications reviewed,

00:35:24 there were 409 errors.

00:35:27 Even when caught and pressed,

00:35:28 the FBI only had fessed up to half of them.

00:35:31 It was all brushed off as innocent mistakes

00:35:33 and poor training, as usual.

00:35:36 It's been 11 years since CBS News officially announced

00:35:39 that I was targeted by unauthorized intrusions

00:35:41 into my work computer.

00:35:43 Subsequent forensics unearthed government-controlled

00:35:45 IP addresses used in the intrusions

00:35:48 and proved that not only did the guilty parties

00:35:50 monitor my work in real time,

00:35:52 they also accessed my "Fast and Furious" files,

00:35:55 got into the larger CBS system,

00:35:58 planted classified documents deep in my operating system,

00:36:01 and were able to listen in on conversations

00:36:03 by activating Skype audio.

00:36:06 I sued after it was clear the Department of Justice

00:36:08 would not hold its own accountable.

00:36:11 The case is the first we know of

00:36:12 in which a journalist spied on by the government

00:36:15 received a clerk's default against an agent

00:36:17 working for government parties in a surveillance operation.

00:36:20 It's a small victory because he was soon reported dead,

00:36:24 which means we can't access potential information

00:36:26 leading to the larger players.

00:36:29 Besides that, I've learned that wrongdoers

00:36:30 in the federal government have their own shield laws

00:36:32 to protect them from accountability.

00:36:35 Making sure journalists can protect their sources

00:36:38 and do the constitutionally protected job

00:36:40 that we do is critical,

00:36:41 but new laws won't necessarily impact dishonest players

00:36:45 in government who have proven more than capable of

00:36:47 and willing to skirt laws to access the information they want.

00:36:51 -Thank you, Ms. Atkinson.

00:36:57 Ms. Free-Johnson, you may begin.

00:37:01 -Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler,

00:37:03 Chairman Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon

00:37:05 and members of the subcommittee for convening today's hearing.

00:37:07 It is an honor and a privilege to present this testimony.

00:37:11 The mission of the Knight Institute,

00:37:12 where I serve as policy director,

00:37:13 is to defend the freedoms of speech

00:37:15 and the press in the digital age.

00:37:17 Our work is concentrated on the intersection

00:37:18 of First Amendment freedoms and new technology

00:37:21 and dedicated to protecting and promoting

00:37:22 a system of free expression

00:37:24 that serves contemporary democracies.

00:37:26 Our press freedom projects, like all our work,

00:37:28 focus on fortifying the infrastructure

00:37:30 of First Amendment law and values

00:37:32 to meet 21st-century pressures.

00:37:34 For journalists and media organizations,

00:37:36 those pressures are formidable.

00:37:37 They stem from surveillance tools

00:37:39 in both government and private hands

00:37:40 that create new vulnerabilities for reporters,

00:37:43 powerful government and private entities

00:37:45 that are fiercely resistant to public oversight

00:37:47 and accountability, and the capacity of machines

00:37:49 to generate and disseminate news and news-like creations.

00:37:53 The Institute is a leading voice

00:37:54 for the First Amendment rights of journalists

00:37:56 and news organizations to publish vital information

00:37:58 in the public interest.

00:38:00 Our aim is to strengthen the constitutional

00:38:02 and statutory protections that will minimize threats

00:38:04 and ensure that journalists and news organizations

00:38:07 can carry out their vital work.

00:38:09 No single piece of legislation is as strongly correlated

00:38:12 with these efforts as the bipartisan

00:38:14 Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying,

00:38:17 or PRESS Act, introduced in this Congress

00:38:19 by Representative Kiley of the subcommittee,

00:38:21 co-led by Representative Raskin, and passed in the House.

00:38:25 Modern news gathering requires that reporters

00:38:27 are able to give assurances of confidentiality

00:38:29 to their sources.

00:38:31 Testimonial protections for journalists

00:38:32 are essential to core First Amendment values,

00:38:35 yet Supreme Court jurisprudence on the protection

00:38:37 of journalist source materials is ambiguous.

00:38:39 In its 1972 seminal case on the topic, Brandsburg v. Hayes,

00:38:44 the Court acknowledged that news gathering

00:38:46 is not without First Amendment protections,

00:38:48 but did not delineate what the protections might be.

00:38:51 The murkiness of the Brandsburg decision

00:38:53 has led to confusion about its holding

00:38:55 and inconsistency in its application.

00:38:57 Illustrating this is the patchwork

00:38:59 of federal circuit court tests that has emerged

00:39:01 in the 52 years since the Court's decision.

00:39:04 The differences in approach result

00:39:05 in unpredictability and inconsistency,

00:39:07 and ultimately compromise the ability of journalists

00:39:09 to do the work we need them to do.

00:39:12 Without strong First Amendment protections,

00:39:14 journalists are less likely to be

00:39:15 able to engage confidential sources, as fewer of them

00:39:18 will come forward.

00:39:19 And when that flow of information stops,

00:39:21 it means the American public is less informed.

00:39:24 Despite widespread shield laws and court-recognized reporters

00:39:27 privileges across the states, the precarious landscape

00:39:29 at the federal level remains, meaning congressional action

00:39:32 is urgently needed.

00:39:33 For these reasons, the Knight Institute fully supports

00:39:36 the Bipartisan Press Act.

00:39:37 It is critical to a free press, protecting journalists

00:39:40 from state-sanctioned surveillance,

00:39:41 and reaffirming their First Amendment rights.

00:39:44 Passing the Press Act is also important

00:39:46 because of the changing nature of what it means

00:39:48 to be a journalist today.

00:39:49 We know that in the digital age, a significant amount

00:39:52 of important reporting is done by journalists who do not

00:39:54 fit a traditional mold.

00:39:56 Whether writing for The Washington Post

00:39:57 or offering a subscription on Substack,

00:39:59 journalists should be afforded a clear, consistent, predictable

00:40:02 protection from policies that account

00:40:04 for a range of legitimate and valuable

00:40:06 journalistic activities.

00:40:08 Clarifying who qualifies for protection via a federal shield

00:40:11 bill is critical to preventing misguided attempts

00:40:13 by the government to compel journalists and media

00:40:16 outlets to reveal source information in contravention

00:40:18 of their First Amendment rights.

00:40:20 It would also ensure durability across administrations,

00:40:23 leading to less uncertainty for journalists and media outlets

00:40:25 across the country.

00:40:27 The Press Act addresses this issue,

00:40:28 offering definitions that account

00:40:30 for the broad landscape of journalism

00:40:31 today, better protecting an appropriately wide swath

00:40:34 of reporters and reporting activity.

00:40:37 The Act also commendably protects journalist

00:40:39 communications, ensuring that information

00:40:41 held by third-party phone and internet providers

00:40:44 is not secretly seized by the government.

00:40:46 These provisions are critical to protecting journalists' First

00:40:48 Amendment rights.

00:40:50 There are, of course, situations in which competing interests

00:40:52 will be at play in the determination of whether

00:40:54 compelling the disclosure of information gained

00:40:56 in the course of an investigation

00:40:57 or other journalistic act is warranted.

00:41:00 The Press Act appropriately addresses these concerns

00:41:02 as well, with a series of exceptions.

00:41:04 In sum, passage of the Press Act into law

00:41:07 would provide critical support to the free press,

00:41:09 thereby benefiting all Americans.

00:41:11 Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.

00:41:15 Thank you, Ms. Free, Johnson.

00:41:16 We will now proceed with questions

00:41:18 under the five-minute rule.

00:41:20 And the chair will recognize the gentleman from California,

00:41:23 Mr. McClintock.

00:41:25 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:41:26 We've seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive acts

00:41:30 by the federal government and its agencies

00:41:33 to suppress debate in many different forms --

00:41:37 the IRS intimidation of Tea Party activists

00:41:39 through its abuse of its authority,

00:41:42 the use of intelligence and law-enforcement agencies

00:41:45 to suppress vital information,

00:41:47 such as the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop

00:41:50 or the sending views on COVID --

00:41:53 all that turned out to be factual and correct.

00:41:57 You know, the beating heart of democracy is freedom of speech.

00:42:00 That's the right of every citizen

00:42:02 to express their opinions freely.

00:42:05 It's by this discussion that we have the tools

00:42:09 to sort out fact from fiction or wisdom from folly

00:42:15 or right from wrong.

00:42:17 That's how a free society finds its way.

00:42:20 And a free press is absolutely fundamental to that process.

00:42:23 Without it, the people cannot make informed decisions

00:42:27 or hold their government accountable for its actions.

00:42:30 And human nature being what it is,

00:42:32 we all know that the most closely guarded secrets

00:42:36 of the government are not those that are marked "top secret."

00:42:39 It's those that are marked "embarrassing."

00:42:41 And it's precisely those embarrassing facts

00:42:44 that are most important for the public to know.

00:42:47 Now, I agree with the ranking members

00:42:49 that CBS has the right to shape its own coverage,

00:42:52 no matter how biased it might be.

00:42:55 But when the government pressures any news outlet,

00:42:59 or for that matter, any private party,

00:43:01 to suppress or shape its coverage,

00:43:04 that crosses a very bright and dangerous line.

00:43:06 So, Ms. Harridge, do you know if CBS's actions

00:43:10 were influenced by the government in any way?

00:43:12 -Use your mic. -Pardon me.

00:43:18 Pardon me.

00:43:20 Congressman, I'm not someone who's known to offer speculation,

00:43:24 so I can't really answer that question directly.

00:43:27 -Okay, fair enough.

00:43:29 But with all of the travail

00:43:31 that you've been dragged through by the government,

00:43:33 has anybody within the government

00:43:35 been held accountable for these acts

00:43:39 against you and your freedom?

00:43:42 -Congressman, based on my experience,

00:43:45 I feel that we're in a very dangerous place as journalists.

00:43:50 I'm facing crippling fines, up to $800 a day,

00:43:55 for protecting my confidential sources.

00:43:57 I'm fortunate that that has been stayed pending the appeal.

00:44:01 -Who's responsible for that, though?

00:44:03 I mean, who are the actors within the government

00:44:05 that are waging war against the freedom of journalists

00:44:09 like yourself to report the facts

00:44:13 that the American people need to form their own opinions?

00:44:16 -If you're referring to my particular case,

00:44:18 I want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation

00:44:21 that's in front of the appellate court.

00:44:23 I want to emphasize that I'm only a witness in that case.

00:44:26 -Let me ask you this.

00:44:27 Has anybody been held accountable

00:44:29 for these acts against you?

00:44:32 -No.

00:44:33 -Okay.

00:44:33 Ms. Atkinson, what's your experience?

00:44:36 -Well, I think it's interesting to hear people say,

00:44:39 and I agree with this,

00:44:40 that the government should not be intervening in news coverage,

00:44:42 but in my experience at CBS, that happens every day.

00:44:46 Members of committees, heads of committees,

00:44:48 members of Congress in the White House

00:44:49 call the Bureau in Washington, D.

00:44:52 C., contacts that they have, editors and managers

00:44:56 up in New York to try to shape our coverage.

00:44:59 -Well, that I don't find particularly objectionable,

00:45:01 as long as there is no force or threat of force behind that.

00:45:07 Do you find that to be the case?

00:45:09 -I don't know what was said.

00:45:10 I just know they called.

00:45:11 There's no physical force threatened,

00:45:14 but there certainly is a great deal of pressure,

00:45:16 you know, weighing on the networks

00:45:18 in terms of their coverage.

00:45:20 -Well, what about government acts directly?

00:45:24 Have you encountered such intimidation yourself

00:45:27 directly from the government,

00:45:28 or is that all kind of channeled through your employers?

00:45:33 -Well, I felt a great deal of pressure

00:45:35 channeled through my employers.

00:45:37 You know, I was told that certain stories

00:45:39 weren't gonna air because we were getting phone calls,

00:45:41 and even though there was nothing wrong with the stories,

00:45:44 let's just let it rest for a day.

00:45:46 Let's pick it up another time.

00:45:48 They're really mad this time.

00:45:49 And there was no objection over the content

00:45:51 of the story or the facts.

00:45:52 It was they just, as I was told, they just didn't like it

00:45:55 or it was a story that they felt was unfavorable at times.

00:45:58 -I mean, if they were offering additional facts

00:46:03 that might have been ignored,

00:46:04 if they were offering different opinions,

00:46:07 that's freedom of speech.

00:46:08 But if behind those suggestions was the threat of force,

00:46:12 that's a completely different matter.

00:46:14 Do you agree?

00:46:15 -Yeah, my position was when political officials

00:46:18 call into the newsroom,

00:46:20 there should be a policy where we tell them

00:46:22 if they object to something or have a factual issue

00:46:26 that they should put it in writing and send it in.

00:46:28 But there are these extensive conversations

00:46:31 that go on behind the scenes.

00:46:32 I only know about a few of them, a relative few of them.

00:46:36 I'm sure they happen in other scenarios, as well.

00:46:38 -Thank you.

00:46:39 -Thank you, gentlemen, from California.

00:46:41 I will now recognize the ranking member

00:46:43 for any questions he might have under the five-minute rule.

00:46:47 -Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:46:49 Ms. Atkinson, the question of FISA aside,

00:46:52 and you know that FISA's renewal

00:46:53 is currently controversially before the Congress.

00:46:59 Should I read your testimony or hear your testimony

00:47:01 to say that the PRESS Act would not be sufficient?

00:47:04 -In my view, to handle some of the problems we've discussed,

00:47:08 I'm not saying it shouldn't be passed,

00:47:10 and I'm not an expert on what it --

00:47:11 -But it's not sufficient?

00:47:12 -Yeah, I think that won't handle --

00:47:14 -What else should we do?

00:47:15 -Well, I think it's a global problem

00:47:19 that has to do with sending a message of oversight

00:47:24 to the intelligence agencies that we know have,

00:47:26 for decades, violated rights and made policies

00:47:30 that are contrary to Constitution and so on.

00:47:33 I don't think there's been an effort they think is serious.

00:47:37 I feel like the intelligence agencies

00:47:38 feel like they're running the committees here

00:47:40 rather than the committees conducting oversight of them

00:47:44 and that there needs to be something --

00:47:46 they understand that they would be held accountable

00:47:48 when they do things,

00:47:49 and I don't know what that looks like in practice,

00:47:52 but I don't think the law is in the --

00:47:53 -Thank you.

00:47:54 Ms. Johnson, in the Brandsburg case,

00:47:56 the Supreme Court declined to recognize

00:47:58 the First Amendment privilege for newsgatherers.

00:48:01 What is the source of Congress' authority

00:48:03 to provide such a privilege by statute?

00:48:05 -Congress is absolutely authorized

00:48:06 under the Constitution to provide this privilege

00:48:09 to create legislation and promulgate legislation

00:48:12 by statute to ensure that these rights

00:48:14 are enshrined further into law.

00:48:16 And, in fact, my understanding is that, in Brandsburg,

00:48:18 the Court invited Congress to do so.

00:48:21 So we are really pleased that the House has acted

00:48:23 in this regard, and we look forward

00:48:24 to the Senate doing so, as well.

00:48:27 -Ms. Johnson, according to your written testimony,

00:48:29 in the decades since the Supreme Court decided Brandsburg,

00:48:31 many federal circuit courts have recognized

00:48:33 some form of a qualified reporter's privilege.

00:48:36 In that case, why is it still important

00:48:38 that we step in to author a statutory reporter's privilege

00:48:40 like the Press Act?

00:48:42 -That's right, sir.

00:48:43 Exactly. It's because the law is unsettled.

00:48:45 You have different landscapes all across the country

00:48:47 where different circuit courts

00:48:48 have different interpretations of Brandsburg.

00:48:50 And, actually, there is a decision at one point

00:48:52 where a circuit court judge said that the Brandsburg case

00:48:55 is something like as clear as mud, right?

00:48:56 It really has not allowed

00:48:59 for a clear understanding of that landscape.

00:49:02 With congressional action,

00:49:03 the Press Act would reduce chill on sources.

00:49:07 It would help journalists do the work we need them to do

00:49:09 because it would provide clarity in that landscape

00:49:11 that is now muddled and uncertain.

00:49:14 -Thank you. Ms. Johnson, as we have heard,

00:49:17 Ms. Herridge is currently subject to a civil contempt

00:49:20 order by a federal judge in Washington, D.

00:49:22 C., in a case where she has refused to provide testimony

00:49:25 regarding her confidential sources

00:49:27 that may be relevant to the private litigants' case

00:49:30 against the government.

00:49:31 It so happens that the government defendants

00:49:33 accused of wrongdoing that case include the FBI.

00:49:36 If the Press Act were law,

00:49:38 would it have applied to Ms. Herridge

00:49:40 in her current circumstances,

00:49:42 and is it important that reporters

00:49:44 who may be a third party to litigation

00:49:45 brought by a party other than the government

00:49:47 also receive protection for their First Amendment interests?

00:49:51 -I do believe that the Press Act,

00:49:52 had it been enacted at the time of litigation,

00:49:54 would have played a role in this

00:49:56 because the most important thing that the Press Act does

00:49:59 is that it forecloses the government

00:50:00 from compelling journalists' disclosure of their sources.

00:50:03 And, yes, I do believe it is important

00:50:05 for there to be this protection for journalists across the board.

00:50:08 -So you believe it would protect --

00:50:10 it would stop the litigation against Ms.

00:50:12 Herridge? -I believe, vis-a-vis

00:50:13 the compelling of sources, it would have played a role, yes.

00:50:18 -Thank you. I yield back.

00:50:21 -I thank the ranking member.

00:50:22 I will now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming

00:50:25 for questions under the 5-minute rule.

00:50:28 -Good morning, ladies, and thank you for being here

00:50:30 to address such an incredibly important issue.

00:50:34 Ms. Herridge, I'd like to start with you.

00:50:36 About two months ago, you were held in contempt

00:50:38 in levying daily fines of $800 per day

00:50:41 for your refusal to disclose your sources.

00:50:44 This is deeply concerning, and what's more concerning,

00:50:47 you are not the first --

00:50:49 In an article related to your case,

00:50:50 the Washington Post reported how, in 2005,

00:50:55 five national reporters were held in contempt

00:50:57 in levying fines of $500 per day.

00:51:00 And in 2008, a USA Today reporter

00:51:03 was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5,000.

00:51:08 All of these instances where reporters

00:51:10 upheld their journalistic integrity

00:51:13 and protected their sources to ensure good reporting

00:51:15 for the American people,

00:51:17 only to face rebuke and heavy-handed enforcement

00:51:20 by the courts,

00:51:21 which are intended to protect the First Amendment.

00:51:24 Ms. Herridge, how fundamental to reporting

00:51:27 is the protection of your sources?

00:51:30 -Congresswoman, I have not lost a night's sleep

00:51:33 about my decision to protect my confidential sources.

00:51:36 That is the core of who I am as a journalist.

00:51:40 I am facing contempt fines

00:51:42 because I am upholding the most basic principle of journalism.

00:51:46 If you cannot offer a source a promise of confidentiality

00:51:51 as a journalist, your toolbox is empty.

00:51:54 No whistleblower is coming forward,

00:51:57 no government official,

00:51:58 with evidence of misconduct or corruption.

00:52:01 And what that means is that it interrupts

00:52:03 the free flow of information to the public.

00:52:06 And as we've all recognized,

00:52:08 journalism is about an informed electorate,

00:52:11 which is the bedrock of our democracy.

00:52:14 If you had asked me 37 years ago when I started working

00:52:17 that I would be in the federal courts

00:52:20 living a legal nightmare to protect my sources,

00:52:23 I would never have believed it.

00:52:25 I told you a story about my son.

00:52:27 I'd like to finish it.

00:52:29 At the end of the conversation, he said,

00:52:31 "Mom, you do what it takes.

00:52:34 I've got your back."

00:52:35 And I thought, if a teenager understands

00:52:37 how sacred this pledge is for every journalist,

00:52:41 certainly Congress can pass the PRESS Act

00:52:44 and codify these guarantees

00:52:46 that will prevent cases like mine in the future.

00:52:49 -Thank you for that.

00:52:51 Do you think that the heavy-handed nature

00:52:53 of these fines is to compel quick disclosure of sources

00:52:56 and not give reporters a choice?

00:52:58 A similar choice the way that you've exercised yours?

00:53:02 -Congressman, just ask yourself,

00:53:04 how many journalists can withstand fines,

00:53:06 in my case, of $800 a day?

00:53:09 Mine stayed pending the appeal.

00:53:11 In another case you cited, it was $5,000 a day.

00:53:15 These fines are designed

00:53:17 that you have to disclose your sources.

00:53:20 You have to burn them.

00:53:21 And in a marketplace where we have this explosion

00:53:25 in independent journalism and smaller outfits,

00:53:29 they cannot withstand these fines.

00:53:31 They cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense

00:53:36 of the First Amendment.

00:53:37 That is why I think this is such a dangerous time

00:53:40 and why the PRESS Act can codify these guarantees,

00:53:44 and it can happen with a very strong --

00:53:46 in fact, the strongest bipartisan message

00:53:49 about the importance of the freedom of the press.

00:53:52 -Well, it doesn't just apply in your industry.

00:53:54 We have other agencies,

00:53:56 and I think that it's a sign of a tyrannical government

00:53:58 when we give them the ability to levy fines like this.

00:54:01 And an example that I will use is that the EPA

00:54:05 has the authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day.

00:54:10 And they do so, and that's how they will force people

00:54:13 into settlements and consent decrees,

00:54:16 even if they are not necessarily guilty.

00:54:18 But they cannot withstand the pressure

00:54:20 that they bring to bear when you have a government

00:54:23 that has that kind of authority.

00:54:25 So I think that it applies in the First Amendment

00:54:27 context with our journalists,

00:54:28 but I think it's a bigger issue that we as Congress

00:54:31 need to address across the board,

00:54:32 because, again, I will use the word,

00:54:34 it results in tyranny when you give agencies

00:54:37 or officials that kind of authority.

00:54:40 One thing that has been mentioned

00:54:41 is that 32 states and Washington,

00:54:43 D.C. have shield laws.

00:54:45 However, not all states do, and there is no federal shield law,

00:54:48 as each of you have described.

00:54:50 As seen in your case and the case of others,

00:54:52 this has then resulted in the courts

00:54:54 actually being enlisted to compel disclosure

00:54:57 of your resources -- of your sources.

00:55:00 In instances such as your case,

00:55:02 what does a hostile court system

00:55:03 do for the protection of a free press?

00:55:07 -I think it presents another very significant challenge

00:55:12 for journalism.

00:55:13 As my colleague Cheryl Atkinson said,

00:55:16 when you are working with a whistleblower

00:55:18 or you're working with a government source

00:55:20 who has access to real information --

00:55:23 and what I mean is information

00:55:25 that is so important to get to the public

00:55:28 so they can make up their own minds,

00:55:30 especially about controversial issues --

00:55:33 if you can't offer that assurance,

00:55:35 nobody's playing ball with you.

00:55:37 And as a journalist, you are always asking yourself,

00:55:40 I think, in the marketplace where we are today,

00:55:44 what kind of assurances can I provide?

00:55:46 Can I go to the mat for this person?

00:55:49 I've always believed that I'm willing to go to the mat.

00:55:52 I think I've shown that in this contempt case.

00:55:55 But not everyone is gonna be able to have that opportunity.

00:56:00 -Well, I thank you. I thank you for your bravery.

00:56:02 I thank you for what you've been willing to expose.

00:56:04 And I thank you all for being willing to stand up

00:56:07 to the tyranny that we're seeing

00:56:09 in the attack on the First Amendment.

00:56:10 It is critical for the freedom

00:56:12 of every single person in this room.

00:56:13 So, thank you.

00:56:14 With that, I yield back.

00:56:16 -Thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.

00:56:17 I will now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont,

00:56:20 Ms. Ballin.

00:56:22 -Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:56:25 One of the things that I've noticed in this committee

00:56:29 and in my subcommittees is that my colleagues

00:56:32 on the other side of the aisle often over-promise

00:56:36 and under-deliver.

00:56:38 And we are told repeatedly that there are conspiracy theories.

00:56:44 We have a government that is going after individual

00:56:50 and private citizens.

00:56:52 I mean, this is the narrative over and over and over again.

00:56:56 And, you know, as a new one to this committee,

00:56:59 I'm always so disappointed when I feel like

00:57:02 there's actually a lot that we agree on.

00:57:05 And press freedoms and the Press Act is something

00:57:10 that we were able to all come together on.

00:57:13 And that's where our attention should be.

00:57:17 We should always be making sure that we have

00:57:20 a free and protected press.

00:57:25 Now, what I'm hearing is really about employment disputes

00:57:34 with news agencies that are now being conflated

00:57:38 into some kind of conspiracy theory,

00:57:41 once again, of the government going after, in this case,

00:57:46 not just private individuals, but the press.

00:57:50 And personal grievances, witnesses' personal grievances

00:57:56 are not actually a tax on the First Amendment

00:58:00 and the free press.

00:58:02 And from what I've heard from this hearing so far

00:58:05 and the materials that we were given in preparation of this,

00:58:09 it seems pretty clear to me that most of the allegations

00:58:12 that have been made so far involve disputes

00:58:16 over what are essentially employment

00:58:19 and editorial decision-making by private news organizations

00:58:24 in the context of news gathering, public reporting,

00:58:27 which we all, you know, desperately need in this country.

00:58:31 And as I said, we came together to support the Press Act.

00:58:35 We all agree that it's an important piece

00:58:41 of legislation to protect.

00:58:43 I wish we spent more time in this committee

00:58:46 really talking about important issues

00:58:49 and not, once again,

00:58:51 having the colleagues over-promise and under-deliver.

00:58:56 If I believed every single time of the conspiracy theories

00:59:05 that are pulled before this committee,

00:59:07 I would have to believe that there was a boogeyman

00:59:10 behind every corner, under every rock.

00:59:16 It's absurd.

00:59:18 It's absolutely absurd.

00:59:20 And it prevents us from doing the real work

00:59:24 that we need to do to protect a free press,

00:59:28 which we desperately need.

00:59:33 -Now, Ms. Fareed-Johnson, could you explain to us,

00:59:42 what is jawboning?

00:59:44 Can you explain that to us?

00:59:46 -Yes, jawboning is the act of coercion

00:59:49 by the government to an entity to get it to --

00:59:55 well, in the case we've seen so far,

00:59:58 to get it to change its positioning,

01:00:01 programming, what have you,

01:00:02 in terms of what it presents to the public.

01:00:05 -Do you have concerns about congressional hearings

01:00:08 such as this one or statements that office holders make

01:00:13 that could be intended to influence

01:00:16 editorial decisions at news organizations?

01:00:20 -News organizations are entitled to decide for themselves

01:00:23 what subjects to cover, and the First Amendment

01:00:26 protects the editorial decisions

01:00:28 they make about their news coverage.

01:00:30 It would be unconstitutional for any government official

01:00:33 to attempt to coerce a news organization

01:00:36 through legal threats or exercise

01:00:37 of the state's coercive power.

01:00:40 -And could jawboning be considered unconstitutional?

01:00:45 -Well, as you know, we filed an amicus brief

01:00:48 in the Murthy case that is before the Supreme Court.

01:00:51 And what we talked about there is that --

01:00:54 we have said publicly, actually,

01:00:55 that the government has an important role to play

01:00:58 as a participant in public discourse,

01:01:00 including trying to persuade, for example,

01:01:02 social-media platforms to change their policies,

01:01:04 but not to engage in coercion to do so.

01:01:07 There is a line there, and we've outlined

01:01:09 that line as critically important.

01:01:11 -And Ms. Free-Johnson, what does it mean

01:01:14 for free public discourse if public officials

01:01:17 can informally intimidate or influence

01:01:21 editorial decision-making,

01:01:22 such as in a hearing such as this one?

01:01:26 -The critical thing is that it cannot be coercion.

01:01:30 We want to ensure that the First Amendment protections

01:01:32 that are afforded to news organizations,

01:01:34 for example, are maintained.

01:01:36 And so that would mean that there cannot be --

01:01:38 that that level of influence cannot go into coercion.

01:01:42 But again, of course, we believe the government

01:01:44 has an important role to play in terms of public discourse.

01:01:47 -Thank you so much, Ms. Free-Johnson.

01:01:48 I really appreciate your time. I yield back.

01:01:50 -Thank you, gentlelady from Vermont.

01:01:52 We're gonna do one more round of questions

01:01:54 before we break for the Prime Minister.

01:01:56 So I'm gonna recognize the gentleman from North Dakota.

01:01:59 -Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:02:00 I don't think people go into investigative

01:02:02 reporting to get rich.

01:02:04 I think it's an incredibly important service

01:02:07 that was just pointed, but I just want to react a little bit.

01:02:10 I don't think being held in contempt,

01:02:11 either civilly or criminally,

01:02:13 is either, A, a conspiracy theory,

01:02:15 or, B, part of an employment dispute.

01:02:19 You're either gonna be civilly held in contempt

01:02:21 and fined until you disclose your source,

01:02:23 or worse yet, you're going to be putting an 8x10

01:02:25 with bars on the window.

01:02:27 That's what contempt means, for not disclosing a source.

01:02:31 So if there's been more chilling effect

01:02:34 on the right of the free pass

01:02:36 and right for North Dakota citizens

01:02:38 to be informed about what's going on,

01:02:40 I'd like to know it.

01:02:42 Ms. Harrods, you've been held in contempt.

01:02:44 Do you feel like that's part of an employment dispute?

01:02:48 -I want to have complete respect for the legal process.

01:02:50 My case is being litigated.

01:02:52 But, no, these are separate matters, Congressman.

01:02:55 -You know, I'm hopeful soon that the Senate

01:02:57 will take up the PRESS Act and add a federal shield law

01:02:59 for reporters being compelled to reveal confidential sources.

01:03:02 Ms. Atkinson, I am under the impression

01:03:04 that reporters in most states have shield law protection,

01:03:07 but federal judges and courts are not bound by the same laws?

01:03:11 -I'm terribly sorry I'm not familiar

01:03:13 with the status of the states versus --

01:03:15 -I know in North Dakota we have a shield law,

01:03:16 and in a lot of different states they do.

01:03:18 So, in 2011, you reported on the Obama --

01:03:21 and I want to back up just a sec.

01:03:24 We act like this is new stuff,

01:03:26 but this has been going on for a long time.

01:03:28 I mean, we've had a lot of talks about DOJ, Twitter,

01:03:31 and Section 230, and liability, and immunity,

01:03:34 and all of those things.

01:03:35 But in 2011, you reported on the Obama administration's

01:03:38 Operation Fast and Furious operation,

01:03:40 in which ATF purposely allowed licensed firearm dealers

01:03:43 to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers.

01:03:46 Were confidential sources and information

01:03:49 critical to informing the public about that scandal?

01:03:52 -Yes.

01:03:53 -Would you have been able to shed light

01:03:54 on the federal government selling weapons,

01:03:56 including grenade launchers and anti-aircraft weapons,

01:03:58 to the Mexican drug cartels

01:04:00 without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources?

01:04:04 -It would have been tough.

01:04:05 There would have been something to report,

01:04:07 but not what we ended up reporting.

01:04:09 -And when you were reporting on the security lapses

01:04:11 in the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack,

01:04:14 do you think you would have been able to shed light

01:04:16 on the federal government's failure

01:04:17 to maintain embassy security

01:04:18 without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources?

01:04:21 -Some of it, yes, but some of it, no.

01:04:23 -Do you, like me, believe it's important

01:04:25 for the American people to be informed of these things,

01:04:28 along with waste, fraud, and abuse by the federal government,

01:04:30 and we should do what we can to ensure robust media scrutiny

01:04:33 of those government officials?

01:04:34 -Yes. -Even if that includes

01:04:36 members of Congress? -Right.

01:04:39 -Does the status quo, where sources need to depend

01:04:41 on a reporter and their outlet's financial tolerance

01:04:44 or physical tolerance for contempt punishment,

01:04:46 equate to a functional, sensible system?

01:04:51 -No, and one quick example, a lot of times,

01:04:55 a source will end up going on the record,

01:04:57 which is preferable,

01:04:58 but you can't begin the conversation many times

01:05:01 if you can't start out by telling him,

01:05:02 as you begin to talk,

01:05:04 that he's not gonna be identified yet.

01:05:08 -Does the current system have a chilling effect

01:05:10 on potential confidential sources and whistleblowers?

01:05:13 -Yes. -If we pass the PRESS Act,

01:05:15 you talked a little bit about the PRESS Act

01:05:17 and where you think it's deficient and whatever,

01:05:20 but you agree it would be helpful, at least.

01:05:21 -It seems like it would be helpful.

01:05:23 -You know, in the last minute and 30 seconds,

01:05:25 I think we can deal with this.

01:05:27 I think there's certain things that we have to recognize.

01:05:31 I'm a former criminal defense attorney.

01:05:33 Confidentiality with my clients is absolutely essential

01:05:36 in order to deal with those things,

01:05:38 and I think there are a lot of different similarities,

01:05:40 but you have to be as mentally tough as anybody

01:05:43 to be an investigative reporter,

01:05:45 and we're sitting here right now talking about these things.

01:05:47 At the same time, we got a letter from the DOJ

01:05:50 saying that they can't release an audio tape

01:05:53 after they've already given us the transcript from a computer

01:05:57 where it was tried to be erased but only found later

01:06:01 because it would have a chilling effect

01:06:03 on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime.

01:06:08 That's what the letter said,

01:06:10 and at the same time, we have a DOJ

01:06:12 going to investigative reporters saying,

01:06:15 "I know you guaranteed these people confidentiality

01:06:17 to report against their government

01:06:19 doing something bad against the US citizens,

01:06:21 but I am going to force you to expose that,

01:06:25 or I'm gonna hold you in civil contempt,

01:06:27 criminal contempt," or all of those things.

01:06:29 Does that seem a little bit hypocritical to you,

01:06:30 Ms. Atkinson?

01:06:34 -There are many things that seem to be double-standard-ish,

01:06:38 one way for them and another way for us.

01:06:40 -I mean, they're literally saying,

01:06:42 "We can't release something

01:06:44 because otherwise we won't ever be able

01:06:46 to investigate anything again,"

01:06:47 which, by the way, is patently false,

01:06:50 but also at the same time, when they don't like something

01:06:52 any of you all are writing --

01:06:53 right, left, center, conservative, liberal --

01:06:56 they say, "I want to know who your source is."

01:06:58 -I get it. -I do, too,

01:07:00 and I think it's very, very unfortunate.

01:07:01 With that, I yield back.

01:07:03 -I'll now recognize my colleague from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

01:07:08 -Chairman Roy, I'm very grateful for your courtesies

01:07:10 and the courtesies of this committee,

01:07:12 the ranking member, the courtesies of Ms. Scanlon.

01:07:15 The good news that I heard as we were concluding

01:07:19 your last question, Ms. Atkinson,

01:07:20 is that the PRESS Act does help.

01:07:23 -It seems like it would, Ms. Lee.

01:07:25 -Yes, and so we need to --

01:07:29 the word "investigative," I hope that you want us,

01:07:31 as members of Congress, to investigate so we get it right,

01:07:36 so that this very hallowed amendment or bill of rights

01:07:44 in the First Amendment is taken seriously.

01:07:47 I take it very seriously,

01:07:48 and I appreciate the work that all of you do

01:07:52 in spite of the obstacles that you face.

01:07:55 This is America, and we have mountains and valleys.

01:07:58 I would like to get a sense from all of you

01:08:03 where we are in the comfort level of your protection.

01:08:07 I'm going to start, Ms. Johnson.

01:08:08 I appreciate the Institute at Columbia, I believe.

01:08:12 And I want to make sure we've got the PRESS Act

01:08:15 that may be needing to be reimagined.

01:08:20 We're looking at other legislation

01:08:22 that allows investigative reporters to work,

01:08:24 but not -- I think there's a fine line between --

01:08:27 I want to use the term "abuse" on both sides,

01:08:30 but there's a fine line.

01:08:31 So I'm going to start with you, Ms. Johnson.

01:08:33 What more care do we need to give

01:08:35 to have the work of an investigative reporter work?

01:08:39 And I'm going to ask each of you that question.

01:08:41 I think that will help us.

01:08:42 I'll be finished, and I'll have to get another hearing

01:08:45 at another point to go into more deeply concerned issues.

01:08:48 But, Ms. Johnson, if you would, quickly.

01:08:50 -So I think the first thing that we need to do

01:08:52 is to ensure the PRESS Act gets passed into law and signed.

01:08:56 But I think it's also important to remember and to recognize

01:08:58 this is a fraught time for journalists.

01:09:01 We have new surveillance technologies.

01:09:03 We have a question of funding for journalism itself.

01:09:07 And so it's really important to do what Congress can do

01:09:09 in the immediate term to protect information

01:09:12 that is vital to our democracy, which is to protect journalists

01:09:15 and allow them to do the job we need them to do.

01:09:18 -And are you concluding your testimony

01:09:20 by saying that would be to pass the PRESS Act

01:09:22 and have funding?

01:09:25 -The first thing Congress should do, yes,

01:09:26 is to pass the PRESS Act,

01:09:28 ensure that it is signed into law

01:09:29 in order to protect journalists

01:09:30 and allow them to be able to give assurances

01:09:32 to their sources that they will not be revealed.

01:09:35 There is, of course, a bigger question

01:09:36 about funding for journalism as a profession, as a whole.

01:09:39 Yes, Mr. Chairman. -All right.

01:09:41 Ms. Atkinson, where do we need to go with this?

01:09:44 -One outstanding issue is, regardless of what laws

01:09:46 are passed, we know from the factual record

01:09:50 that there are bad actors inside our agencies

01:09:52 that will violate laws.

01:09:54 So a law doesn't necessarily provide full protection.

01:09:58 And number two, when a citizen tries to get redressed

01:10:03 for something like that in civil courts, as I'm doing,

01:10:06 I found the federal government has inordinate protections,

01:10:08 their own shield laws, I'll call them.

01:10:10 They have immunity.

01:10:12 We have to get permission from them, the alleged guilty party,

01:10:15 to get depositions and information.

01:10:18 And I think this is something that needs to be fixed

01:10:21 by Congress, the broad immunity granted to people

01:10:25 who may be doing wrong inside government.

01:10:28 -And is there any detriment to the IE, the --

01:10:35 I'm on another -- on the AI.

01:10:39 Is there another detriment to the fact

01:10:41 that AI exists amongst us?

01:10:43 -I'll bet there is, but I'm not an expert on that.

01:10:46 -All right.

01:10:48 We're back-to-back hearings.

01:10:50 And if you would, Ms. Cavalaro -- Cavalaro, sorry.

01:10:55 Didn't see it.

01:10:56 Thank you. Ms. Cavalaro, what more do we need to do?

01:11:00 -So, SAG-AFTRA has, for decades, supported a federal shield law,

01:11:06 and we would first hope that the PRESS Act passes.

01:11:11 I think that's a priority.

01:11:13 I think we need to take that first step.

01:11:15 I do think there are other challenges

01:11:17 facing journalism and journalists

01:11:20 that we would love to use our voice

01:11:22 as a labor union representing journalists

01:11:25 to advocate for, but I do think that it's a priority.

01:11:28 I think the idea that this passed unanimously

01:11:33 and there is bipartisan support should mean it's something

01:11:36 that we should be able to move forward

01:11:38 quickly and expeditiously.

01:11:40 -We're gonna do a deep dive on that.

01:11:41 I want to just quickly finish, I think, with Ms. Atkinson.

01:11:45 -Herridge. -Ms. --

01:11:47 -Yeah, Herridge. -I'm looking at --

01:11:49 Ms. Herridge, if you would. -Yes, thank you.

01:11:51 Sure, thank you for the question.

01:11:52 I agree with my colleagues.

01:11:54 I think the imperative is to get the PRESS Act

01:11:57 through the Senate and on the President's desk.

01:11:59 It's gonna close a gap in the federal courts.

01:12:03 It's gonna bring consistency between the state shield

01:12:06 and the federal shield laws,

01:12:08 and I just think a lot of good will follow from that.

01:12:11 -Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very grateful for the time given.

01:12:13 I think we are committed to doing a deep dive

01:12:17 on this very important issue.

01:12:18 First Amendment rights are pivotal,

01:12:21 and I want to be part of helping as opposed to undermining.

01:12:24 Thank you so very much, and I yield back.

01:12:26 -I think the gentlelady from Texas

01:12:27 will now recognize the chairman of the full committee,

01:12:31 Mr. Jordan. -Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:12:32 Ms. Atkinson, you wrote stories critical

01:12:34 of the Obama administration.

01:12:35 Is that accurate?

01:12:37 -Yes, but may I point out it wasn't put in a political light,

01:12:41 and there were also stories that some would consider critical

01:12:45 of the Bush administration. -Well, let's say it this way.

01:12:46 You wrote stories critical of the government.

01:12:48 -Yes. -Yeah.

01:12:49 You factually reported it.

01:12:50 And then you did it on "Fast and Furious,"

01:12:52 you did it on Benghazi and other issues.

01:12:54 -Yes. -And even before,

01:12:55 as you said, on the Bush administration.

01:12:57 And then strange things started happening to you, right?

01:13:00 -Yes. -Yeah, like, your computer,

01:13:02 you think your phone gets bugged, you believe,

01:13:04 and things happen to your computer

01:13:05 after you wrote stories critical of the government.

01:13:08 -Right. -That's scary, right?

01:13:09 -Yeah, it's not a comfortable feeling, right.

01:13:12 -Ms. Harridge, you wrote stories

01:13:13 critical of the Biden administration.

01:13:15 Is that true?

01:13:16 -That's fair.

01:13:18 -I mean, you wrote a number of things about the laptop issue,

01:13:20 about Hunter Biden, all kinds of things.

01:13:21 You wrote critical of the Biden family,

01:13:23 the Biden business operation,

01:13:24 the Biden brand, and all that stuff.

01:13:26 -Congressman, I reported out the facts of the story.

01:13:28 -You sure did. -I called bosses, right?

01:13:29 -You sure did. You reported the facts.

01:13:31 And then CBS fired you. Is that right?

01:13:36 -My position was terminated.

01:13:37 -Yeah, and you're an award-winning journalist.

01:13:39 How long did you work at CBS?

01:13:41 -I worked at CBS News for 4 1/2 years.

01:13:44 During that period, we won major awards.

01:13:49 I was part of an Emmy-winning team.

01:13:50 I was nominated for investigative Emmys.

01:13:53 I think the most important projects

01:13:55 were projects that drove legislation here on the Hill

01:13:58 that positively impacted a million veterans.

01:14:01 -So, award-winning journalist, won all kinds of awards,

01:14:04 had worked there almost five years,

01:14:06 had extensive experience at a different major network

01:14:09 prior to that where you were also

01:14:10 an award-winning journalist,

01:14:11 done all kinds of reporting critical of the government

01:14:14 there, as well, and then you get fired.

01:14:17 But it's worse than that, isn't it?

01:14:18 'Cause they didn't just fire you.

01:14:20 What else did they do?

01:14:22 -On February 13th, when I was told on a Zoom call

01:14:25 that my employment was terminated,

01:14:28 I was locked out of my e-mails,

01:14:29 and I was locked out of the office.

01:14:32 CBS News seized hundreds of pages of my reporting files,

01:14:37 including confidential source information.

01:14:40 -And that's not normal, is it?

01:14:42 -No, that's not my experience in the other two networks

01:14:44 that I've worked at or with my colleagues at CBS News.

01:14:49 When the network of Walter Cronkite

01:14:52 seizes your reporting files,

01:14:53 including confidential source information,

01:14:56 that is an attack on investigative journalism.

01:14:59 -Yes, it sure is.

01:15:00 I'm just trying to --

01:15:02 It seems to me there's a pattern developing here.

01:15:04 You're critical of the government,

01:15:05 Miss Atkinson situation, and Shazam,

01:15:07 they start doing all kinds of strange things

01:15:11 to your phone line, to your computer.

01:15:12 You're critical of the government

01:15:14 at a major news organization,

01:15:15 and you're an award-winning journalist.

01:15:17 You've been there five years, you get fired.

01:15:18 But it's not just you got fired.

01:15:19 In fact, we can --

01:15:21 Maybe there's nothing to that.

01:15:23 But what we do know is they seize your documents.

01:15:25 That's scary, as well.

01:15:28 And you talk about a chilling effect on the First Amendment.

01:15:30 I don't know how it could be more chilling.

01:15:32 Now, thank goodness the lady sitting beside you,

01:15:34 they stepped in, right,

01:15:35 'cause they're stepping in and helping.

01:15:38 Them stepping in helped you get your --

01:15:40 'Cause you got your files back, finally, didn't you?

01:15:42 -I did get the files back.

01:15:44 If I didn't have the support of SAG-AFTRA,

01:15:47 really publicly standing up for journalism,

01:15:50 I don't believe that I would have received the files

01:15:53 and they would have been returned.

01:15:55 And I just want to be clear, Congressman,

01:15:57 wherever you work, if this happened to you,

01:16:00 it's an attack on free press.

01:16:03 It's an attack on the First Amendment.

01:16:05 It makes it more challenging for reporters to work in the future.

01:16:09 That disrupts the free flow of information to the public.

01:16:14 They call journalism a profession for a reason,

01:16:18 because it's about an informed electorate,

01:16:21 and it's a cornerstone of our democracy.

01:16:24 I can only speak for myself.

01:16:26 When my records were seized, I felt it was a journalistic rape.

01:16:31 -Ms. Cavallaro, have you ever seen that before,

01:16:33 where when someone is leaving an employment

01:16:35 at a major news organization, they seize their documents?

01:16:40 -I can't say that SAG-AFTRA is familiar

01:16:43 with every single case of termination or departure.

01:16:47 -I'm not asking that.

01:16:48 I'm saying, have you ever seen anything like this?

01:16:49 -I have no recollection of seeing --

01:16:52 -Well, that should scare us, too.

01:16:54 First time it ever happened,

01:16:55 and it happens to an award-winning journalist

01:16:58 who's been in this profession for a number of years,

01:17:00 known all across the profession.

01:17:02 And that happens on the heels of what happened to Ms. Atkinson,

01:17:05 because both journalists were critical of the government.

01:17:07 That's exactly what the --

01:17:09 That's what journalism is about, being critical of the government,

01:17:11 when the government's doing things wrong,

01:17:13 and then to have a major news organization

01:17:15 or the government itself do this.

01:17:16 In your testimony, Ms. Harrods, you had a very important line.

01:17:20 You said, "If confidential sources are not protected,

01:17:22 journalism is dead."

01:17:24 And I agree, but it would seem to me,

01:17:26 if retaliation is allowed by the government

01:17:29 or by some major media outlet, journalism is dead, as well.

01:17:33 That's what this hearing's about.

01:17:34 And I, again, want to thank you all for coming

01:17:37 and sharing your important testimony.

01:17:39 I yield back.

01:17:41 -I thank the chairman.

01:17:43 I'd like to recognize the ranking member.

01:17:45 -I just have a unanimous consent request

01:17:47 to enter into the record Paramount's response

01:17:49 to Chairman Jordan's February 23rd letter

01:17:51 regarding Ms. Harrods' termination.

01:17:54 It corrects the record on some of the wild speculation

01:17:56 and mischaracterization we've heard from the other side,

01:17:59 as it describes that Ms. Harrods

01:18:01 was not the only person who was let go at that time

01:18:05 and that certain procedures were followed.

01:18:08 -Chairman, you have just for a second?

01:18:09 -The gentleman from Ohio. -I didn't -- I didn't --

01:18:11 All I said is it happened.

01:18:13 But what happened afterwards is what's scary,

01:18:15 when they seized her files.

01:18:17 That is scary, 'cause that is the point I tried to make.

01:18:20 -Unanimous consent to introduce the letter.

01:18:22 -Without objection. -Thank you.

01:18:25 -Suspend for one second.

01:18:27 -So, in agreement.

01:18:29 Do we want to go ahead and do -- just proceed?

01:18:32 -Okay, fine. -It's not going to go through.

01:18:37 -It's not going through. -If they're not objecting,

01:18:38 we're not going to do it.

01:18:40 -Okay.

01:18:42 -I will now recognize the ranking member for questions.

01:18:44 -Thank you.

01:18:45 And I want to thank all of our witnesses here today.

01:18:48 I appreciate Ms. Harrods' repeated acknowledgment

01:18:51 that her employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit

01:18:55 in which she was held in contempt for refusing

01:18:57 to disclose a confidential source,

01:19:00 despite the apparent confusion of some of my colleagues,

01:19:02 where they conflated those two matters.

01:19:05 It's clear, I think, that the contempt was the result

01:19:09 of a private individual's lawsuit

01:19:11 seeking that information.

01:19:13 It wasn't a government action seeking that information

01:19:17 until it got to the point where the courts

01:19:19 were enforcing a contempt citation,

01:19:24 which brings us back to my remarks at the outset,

01:19:27 which is that with the federal law

01:19:29 in a state of muddiness, confusion,

01:19:32 disarray since the Fransburg versus Hayes decision

01:19:36 over 50 years ago,

01:19:39 it really is incumbent upon Congress to take action

01:19:43 to make sure that the courts are not put in a position

01:19:46 where they are exerting fines or possible jail time

01:19:49 against journalists

01:19:50 because they don't think they have the authority not to.

01:19:54 So in Fransburg, the court explicitly invited Congress

01:19:57 to "determine whether a statutory newsman,"

01:20:01 I would say, and women's privilege,

01:20:03 "is necessary and desirable,

01:20:05 and to fashion standards and rules

01:20:07 as narrow or broad as deemed necessary."

01:20:09 So, Ms. Johnson, if you could just take us through

01:20:13 why should Congress step in

01:20:15 and actually take up this invitation,

01:20:17 particularly in the context of the recent threats

01:20:19 to the First Amendment and freedom of the press

01:20:21 in our modern world?

01:20:23 Congress should absolutely take this up

01:20:24 because it is, in fact, confusing,

01:20:26 and it leaves journalists in alert

01:20:28 where they are going to be subject to,

01:20:30 have been subject to, different interpretations

01:20:32 of this seminal case that, as you note,

01:20:34 is over 50 years old.

01:20:36 But with the Press Act and with the definitions it provides

01:20:38 and with the comprehension

01:20:40 with which it addresses this issue,

01:20:42 it is really an opportunity for Congress to clarify

01:20:47 and to offer that certainty to journalists

01:20:50 and to offer certainty to sources who,

01:20:51 as we've heard from our colleagues on the stand here today,

01:20:55 are going to be less and less likely to come forward.

01:20:58 And that ultimately harms Americans

01:21:00 because when Americans do not have access to information,

01:21:02 they cannot understand what their government is doing.

01:21:05 So it really is, it is a comprehensive approach

01:21:08 that needs to happen as quickly as possible.

01:21:10 - And I appreciate that.

01:21:12 I think it also harms our court system

01:21:13 when we're putting our courts in the position

01:21:15 where they are doing something

01:21:17 that is then undermining First Amendment

01:21:19 and free press rights.

01:21:22 We've noted, I think, that dozens of our states,

01:21:26 I've seen 49 states, I've seen 32 states,

01:21:29 so the majority of states in D.C.

01:21:32 have now enacted shield laws, but they are not uniform.

01:21:35 And of course, we have the Federal Circuit Courts,

01:21:37 which have a variety of interpretations

01:21:39 of what's required or not required.

01:21:41 How does that impact journalism in this modern age

01:21:46 where so much of it is digital and online platforms

01:21:49 and we're not talking about the mom and pop paper

01:21:51 down the street anymore,

01:21:52 but we're talking about wider distribution sources?

01:21:55 How does the lack of a more uniform shield law

01:21:58 impact journalism?

01:21:59 - It impacts it in a few ways,

01:22:01 and I will say that the 49 states plus Washington

01:22:03 have either a shield law or a court recognition

01:22:08 of a reportage privilege, so there's the distinction there.

01:22:11 But actually, I think it's important

01:22:12 to bring this down to an example

01:22:14 because the DOJ recently put into place media guidelines

01:22:18 that talk about what a member of the news media

01:22:21 can or cannot be subject to in terms of the limitations

01:22:24 as to what government can do to compel sources.

01:22:27 However, the Justice Department's internal criteria

01:22:30 give the agency substantial latitude

01:22:32 when it comes to defining what a member

01:22:34 of the news media is.

01:22:35 And as I noted in my testimony, in this digital age,

01:22:38 we have a number of individuals

01:22:39 who are engaging in legitimate journalistic acts

01:22:42 who might not fit a traditional mold

01:22:44 in terms of being, for example,

01:22:45 a Wall Street Journal reporter.

01:22:47 But it is important that we recognize

01:22:49 that because we are now in an age of new technologies

01:22:52 and new opportunities and innovations in journalism,

01:22:55 that having the Press Act with this broad definition

01:22:57 to protect journalists of all different types of stripes

01:23:00 will be important to ensuring that assurance

01:23:02 for journalists across the board.

01:23:04 - Well, again, I want to thank all of our witnesses

01:23:06 for helping us reemphasize the importance of the Press Act

01:23:10 and hopefully persuading our senatorial colleagues

01:23:14 to get with it and help us get this done.

01:23:16 So thank you again.

01:23:17 I yield back.

01:23:19 - I thank the ranking member.

01:23:20 I want to thank her and my Democrat colleagues

01:23:22 for working with us to try to move this along.

01:23:24 I believe we're gonna be able to finish the hearing

01:23:26 without breaking.

01:23:27 The prime minister has not yet started speaking.

01:23:29 So we're gonna proceed,

01:23:30 and then we hopefully won't have to break and come back

01:23:32 for everybody's benefit.

01:23:34 So, Ms. Harridge, could you just quickly,

01:23:37 for the benefit of the committee,

01:23:39 articulate the awards and honors you've received

01:23:43 in carrying out your profession?

01:23:46 - Wow, that's a little embarrassing.

01:23:49 - No, it's important.

01:23:51 - I've always tried to stay in the background.

01:23:53 I'm so proud of the work that we did at CBS News.

01:23:58 I was part of an Emmy-winning team.

01:24:01 I was also nominated for investigative Emmys,

01:24:04 primarily for the work that we did,

01:24:08 revealing the toxic exposure of our veterans,

01:24:11 specifically a group who were based in Uzbekistan

01:24:15 in K2, this was the launching pad

01:24:18 for classified operations into Afghanistan.

01:24:21 We also did reporting that was a catalyst for legislation,

01:24:25 the Camp Lejeune Justice Act,

01:24:27 which has opened new opportunities and benefits

01:24:30 and payments for a million veterans and civilians.

01:24:35 This was real impact reporting,

01:24:37 and it was accountability reporting

01:24:39 on both the left and the right.

01:24:42 - And you mentioned Emmys, other awards.

01:24:45 In other words, is there any indication

01:24:47 of negative conduct in carrying out your profession?

01:24:52 I mean, you've been getting awards.

01:24:55 Nothing would indicate that there was a failure

01:24:58 to perform your duties,

01:24:59 failure to do your job competently, correct?

01:25:02 - Congressman, I think what you're asking me

01:25:04 is whether I was terminated for poor performance.

01:25:06 I don't believe that my record would reflect that.

01:25:10 I don't know what factors the CBS News executives

01:25:13 considered when they terminated my position.

01:25:15 There was tension over the Hunter Biden reporting

01:25:18 and the Biden administration,

01:25:20 but I can't say for sure why I was let go.

01:25:24 - And you mentioned that tension.

01:25:26 You had been one of the reporters,

01:25:28 certainly in what we might define as the mainstream media,

01:25:31 that was focusing intently on the Hunter Biden laptop,

01:25:36 on the various facts surrounding the Biden family

01:25:40 and the flow of money

01:25:41 and all of the things involved with that.

01:25:42 Is that correct?

01:25:44 - That is correct.

01:25:45 For the full picture, though,

01:25:46 I was also the reporter at CBS News

01:25:49 who obtained the audio tape of former President Trump

01:25:52 apparently bragging about the Iran classified documents

01:25:55 at Mar-a-Lago, and I also exposed how 50 soldiers

01:25:58 were denied the Purple Heart under the Trump administration

01:26:01 in an effort to deescalate

01:26:03 after a ballistic missile attack in Iran.

01:26:05 I'm someone who calls balls and strikes, Congressman.

01:26:08 I just follow the facts where they lead.

01:26:10 That has always been my calling card.

01:26:12 - When CBS let you go,

01:26:14 was it around the time of you calling out

01:26:15 the Trump administration

01:26:16 or around the time that you were pursuing

01:26:18 more of the Hunter Biden?

01:26:19 - I was let go a few days after the special counsel,

01:26:22 Robert, her report into President Biden's handling

01:26:25 of classified information.

01:26:26 - At the same time all that's going on,

01:26:30 you're managing the issue with Fox

01:26:34 and the reality that you are being held in contempt,

01:26:38 and you've touched on it,

01:26:39 and I don't wanna repeat it too much,

01:26:42 but it's really important that, for the record,

01:26:46 you are in fact being held in contempt by a court

01:26:50 at the tune of $800 a day, which as you've noticed

01:26:52 and thankfully been stayed pending appeal.

01:26:56 That is correct?

01:26:56 - That is correct, and I'd also like to emphasize,

01:26:59 Congressman, that I have total respect

01:27:02 for the legal process.

01:27:03 My case is in front of the appellate court,

01:27:06 and so I'm limited in what I can say.

01:27:09 I reject characterizations

01:27:11 that the court is being heavy-handed.

01:27:13 It's well within their discretion to levy these fines.

01:27:17 I was making the point that for many journalists

01:27:20 facing fines of that significance would be insurmountable,

01:27:24 and they'd have to make a hard choice

01:27:26 about whether to protect their sources.

01:27:28 - In closing, could you just reiterate

01:27:31 the extent of your belief of what this means

01:27:33 for other journalists, and you alluded to before,

01:27:37 smaller journalists without the protection of the bubble

01:27:39 of the kind of corporate structure that you've got

01:27:42 with Fox backing you up from your previous reporting?

01:27:45 - I just don't think many journalists

01:27:48 could withstand the threat of significant

01:27:50 and crippling financial sanctions.

01:27:52 They may not have a former employer or a current employer

01:27:55 who's in a position to mount a vigorous and costly defense.

01:28:00 I think it's a very dangerous period for journalism.

01:28:03 The Press Act would close the legal gap in the system,

01:28:07 this ambiguity that I've had to deal with for two years,

01:28:11 and I wanna emphasize, this is not about a single journalist,

01:28:14 it's not about a single story,

01:28:16 it's not about a single network.

01:28:19 What happens in my case, the passage of the Press Act

01:28:22 is gonna impact every journalist working in this room,

01:28:27 and it's gonna impact every journalist in the United States

01:28:31 and for the next generation to come.

01:28:34 If there's anything I can accomplish in my career

01:28:37 as a journalist, it's going to be getting this

01:28:40 over the finish line.

01:28:42 I feel this with every core of my being.

01:28:45 - Thank you, Ms. Harridge.

01:28:46 I do wanna acknowledge that the gentleman

01:28:48 from North Carolina has been waiting here patiently

01:28:49 throughout the hearing.

01:28:50 He indicated he didn't necessarily have a lot of questions,

01:28:52 but I do wanna give him a moment here at close

01:28:54 before we adjourn.

01:28:56 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:28:56 I think I will take advantage of the opportunity.

01:28:58 I think you guys have aired the Press Act,

01:29:00 which of course has already passed here very well.

01:29:02 It's purpose in creating a limited privilege

01:29:06 on the part of journalists.

01:29:09 I appreciate the fact, I've certainly heard,

01:29:12 Ms. Atkinson and Ms. Harridge, from you.

01:29:14 I understand and I appreciate your ethic

01:29:16 in terms of maintaining your position

01:29:18 of calling balls and strikes, your desire

01:29:21 and your professional commitment to maintaining a neutrality

01:29:24 so that you're on guard even to coming here

01:29:27 and letting Republicans take shots at CBS News

01:29:30 through you, Ms. Harridge, for example.

01:29:31 I get that.

01:29:33 But there's another thing here,

01:29:34 and I think about the presence of Matt Taibbi

01:29:37 and Michael Schellenberger,

01:29:39 a lot of the independence of journalists.

01:29:41 Ms. Harridge, nevertheless, my observation,

01:29:45 and I'm a Republican, so it's partisan, I guess, in part,

01:29:49 but I think, you look at the stats,

01:29:52 I would suggest the American people see it this way.

01:29:53 CBS News is among the corporate behemoth media outlets,

01:29:58 all of which seem to be captured

01:30:01 by one side of the American political spectrum.

01:30:03 You've worked for one of those.

01:30:05 Maybe Fox News is one on the other side,

01:30:08 but CBS, NBC, Wall Street Journal, excuse me,

01:30:11 well, largely, yes, Washington Post, New York Times,

01:30:16 all of big media seems to be captured by one side.

01:30:19 You've worked for a sustained period of time

01:30:21 for one of those networks.

01:30:23 What of that?

01:30:28 I mean, is that not true?

01:30:29 It's not so much about your firing, your termination,

01:30:31 whether it's 'cause of Hunter Biden's story or whatever,

01:30:33 but isn't that a problem?

01:30:35 And how does a journalist who's independent

01:30:38 and wants to call balls and strikes

01:30:39 function in an environment where all the big media behemoths

01:30:43 are captured by one side of the political spectrum?

01:30:45 - Congressman, I've always tried to be respectful

01:30:49 of my former employers.

01:30:50 So I worked at ABC News, I worked at Fox News,

01:30:53 and I worked at CBS News,

01:30:55 and I brought the same approach at every place that I worked,

01:30:59 which is that it's about accountability journalism

01:31:01 on the left and on the right

01:31:03 and representing diverse points of view.

01:31:07 This is so important in a marketplace of ideas.

01:31:10 It's so important in a civil debate

01:31:13 to settle issues in this country.

01:31:16 And I feel that the Press Act,

01:31:19 in guaranteeing these protections to sources,

01:31:23 helps grow the voices in journalism.

01:31:26 That's the bottom line for me.

01:31:29 - Okay. - Diverse voices.

01:31:30 - I get that, and I understand that you may wanna limit

01:31:33 the avenues or the areas you wanna take on

01:31:36 so that you can emphasize those things

01:31:37 that might cover new ground.

01:31:39 And the Press Act is where you decided to focus,

01:31:41 but I'll give you one more opportunity.

01:31:44 To the extent you're one of the admirable,

01:31:47 professional journalists who call balls and strikes,

01:31:50 when you sit on, you're on air at CBS News,

01:31:54 you're lending your ethic and your image

01:31:58 to an organization that's decided

01:32:00 to do something decidedly different.

01:32:02 Is that not true?

01:32:03 - Sir, I came to CBS News to do investigative reporting

01:32:11 and to bring in diverse voices,

01:32:13 and I did my best to do that.

01:32:15 I can't explain all of the decisions of the executives.

01:32:19 In some cases, I felt that they limited

01:32:21 points of view and voices.

01:32:23 I was uncomfortable with that

01:32:25 because I think good journalism is about diverse voices.

01:32:29 - I think professional, ethical journalists,

01:32:32 and Ms. Atkinson, I haven't wanted to leave you out,

01:32:34 but it's hard to pick one example and kinda go there.

01:32:37 I have great respect for the struggles

01:32:41 that your profession has,

01:32:43 and I don't know how all of them get solved.

01:32:46 I do believe we make progress in bits and pieces,

01:32:49 but I also, I do think that it is a great tragedy

01:32:55 that big media have all,

01:33:02 they can trot out a Catherine Herridge,

01:33:06 but everyone, I think, probably recognizes

01:33:10 who's fair-minded where the overall trend has gone

01:33:14 and that it leaves professional journalists

01:33:17 in a hopelessly conflicted situation

01:33:20 if you have a network that has decided

01:33:23 to go one way entirely and merely has a tokenism

01:33:28 as to what professional journalism ought to be.

01:33:32 I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

01:33:33 - I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

01:33:35 This concludes today's hearing.

01:33:36 We thank the witnesses for appearing

01:33:38 before the committee today.

01:33:38 Without objection, all members will have

01:33:40 five legislative days to submit additional written questions

01:33:42 for the witnesses or additional materials for the record.

01:33:45 Without objection, the hearing is.

Category

Transcript

Recommended