[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIGHTING FOR A FREE PRESS: PROTECTING
JOURNALISTS AND THEIR SOURCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-389 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
CHIP ROY, Texas Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana J. LUIS CORREA, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin ERIC SWALWELL, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TED LIEU, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina Ranking Member
KEVIN KILEY, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas CORI BUSH, Missouri
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota BECCA BALINT, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, April 11, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Governmentfrom the State of Texas..... 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 5
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 6
WITNESSES
Catherine V. Herridge, Investigative Journalist
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Testimony............................................. 11
Mary Cavallaro, Chief Broadcast Officer, News & Broadcast
Department, Screen Actors Guild--American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 15
Sharyl Attkisson, Investigative Editor, Managing Editor, ``Full
Measure with Sharyl Attkisson''
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Testimony............................................. 21
Nadine Farid Johnson, Policy Director, Knight First Amendment
Institute, Columbia University
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Testimony............................................. 28
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 50
A letter from Randa Soudah, Senior Vice President, Associate
General Counsel, Employment Law Paramount Global, to the
Honorable Chair Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Feb. 23, 2024, submitted by
the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
FIGHTING FOR A FREE PRESS: PROTECTING JOURNALISTS AND THEIR SOURCES
----------
Thursday, April 11, 2024
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, McClintock, Bishop,
Hageman, Armstrong, Scanlon, Nadler, Jackson Lee, and Balint.
Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on
a free press and protecting journalists.
I'll remind everybody that the guests in the chamber are
guests, and you're free to be here, but this is no audience
participation in the hearing. This is a hearing, and we're
going to conduct it accordingly.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that
cannot be limited without being lost.
Thomas Jefferson
Those words were true when Thomas Jefferson wrote them in 1786,
and they are still true today. The First Amendment to the
Constitution guarantees freedom of the press and prohibits the
Federal Government from making any law abridging that freedom.
In his concurrence in The New York Times v. The United
States, Justice Hugo Black stated,
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free
press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role
in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the
Governors.
The Framers of the Constitution haled the freedom of the press
as the most important political liberty and the keystone on
which all our other freedoms rely.
As is still the case today, journalists are often the first
to expose government abuse, waste, fraud, and encroachments on
the personal freedoms we hold dear. Sadly, the freedom of the
press is under attack in our country from multiple angles: The
White House, activist judges, and mainstream media networks.
For example, the Obama White House illegally spied on
investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson by allegedly hacking
into her cell phone and computer to determine the identity of a
confidential source. We also saw the Obama Administration take
an adversarial position regarding freedom of the press when it
sought to silence anyone blowing the whistle on the Federal
Government's waste and abuse by seizing the phone records of
Associated Press reporters and editors who use source materials
to write stories. The phone records seized were not just those
owned by the Associated Press, but also personal, home, and
cell phones.
The seizure of these records was such an alarming step by
the Federal Government that a coalition of 50 news
organizations, including ABC, CNN, The New York Times, and The
Washington Post, submitted a letter of protest to then-Attorney
General Eric Holder about the raid, which stated that the
administration's actions called into question the very
integrity of the Department of Justice policies toward the
press and its ability to balance on its own its police powers
against the First Amendment rights of the news media and the
public's interest in reporting on all manner of conduct.
The Obama Administration's war on a free press showed us
that Executive interference has a chilling effect that
disincentivizes whistleblowers and sources from coming forward
with critical information. That chilling and eventually
freezing out effect harms the quality and integrity of
journalism on a major scale.
Meanwhile, we have seen the Biden-Garland Justice
Department arrest and prosecute journalist Steve Baker, who was
reporting from the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th on the
events that took place inside the Capitol. We also recently saw
a Federal Court order investigative journalist Catherine
Herridge to identify a confidential source and then hold her in
contempt when she exercised her First Amendment right to
maintain the source's confidentiality.
First Amendment advocates on both sides of the aisle have
warned that government actions such as this could have
devastating consequences for a free press. Around that same
time, CBS News terminated Ms. Herridge's employment and took
unprecedented actions with regards to her belongings, including
source materials.
CBS News officials reportedly boxed up and seized some of
the materials in her office, including her investigative files
and laptop computer, with the intent to search through items to
segregate materials Ms. Herridge developed or worked on for CBS
News. CBS News' planned surge through Ms. Herridge's materials
threatened to trample on her First Amendment rights and could
have divulged confidential sources stemming from her previous
work with other networks.
Along those same lines, we have also seen the Federal
Government seek to impermissibly shape news story, even
coercing social media companies to sensor and remove content on
their platforms relating to foreign influence peddling by the
President and his family.
Today's hearing is about defending our fundamental liberty
and protecting journalists and their sources from these
attacks. We will examine the Federal Government's infringement
on the freedom of the press and examine the prospects for a
Federal shield law.
On July 19, 2023, the House Committee on the Judiciary with
a vote of 23 to 0--that doesn't often happen in the House
Judiciary Committee--23 to 0 favorably reported on the Protect
Reporters from Exploitative State Spying, or PRESS Act. In
January of this year, the full House passed the PRESS Act by a
voice vote. The PRESS Act was written to prohibit the Federal
Government from compelling journalists to identify a source, as
well as any records, contents of a communication, documents, or
information obtained or created by journalists in the course of
their work.
The significance of the PRESS Act cannot be understated. It
ensures a free press independent from an Executive Branch that
seeks to attack or harass journalists to identify their
confidential sources.
Now, that the House has done its job and stood up to fight
for the freedom of the press, it is now the Senate's turn to
take up this legislation to continue Congress' commitment to
protecting our fundamental freedoms. Our constitutional
guarantee of a free press is under attack. It is our job to
stand up for that right and protect journalists and their
sources.
I look forward to hearing from all our distinguished
witnesses today who will all bring unique personal and
professional perspectives to this important issue.
Please note that a joint schedule of Congress is scheduled
for 11 a.m. and the Committee will recess for the duration of
that session and gavel back in shortly after.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The necessity for and guarantee of a free press is one of
the fundamental pillars of our democratic republic, predating
and inspiring both our Constitution and the First Amendment.
We all know that a democracy only truly works when its
citizens are properly informed, and a free press contributes to
this goal by ensuring truth and accountability from those in
power. A free press informs the American people of important
policy issues and government actions that may impact their
lives and crucially can reveal incompetence, corruption,
deceit, fraud, or bad faith by political candidates and
government officials.
Thus, attempts by government actors and would-be leaders to
undermine the press, whether by promoting conspiracy theories
and lies, attacking members of the press with whom they
disagree, or undermining the press' ability to obtain vital
information, are an assault on the pillars of our democratic
foundation.
One particularly pernicious way this occurs is when the
government seeks to compel journalists to disclose the identity
of confidential sources, and I think it's important at the
outset here to talk about the different ways where the
government can compel. It's one thing for the government to
seek access to confidential sources. It's another when a court
is enforcing the law that is written because Congress has
enacted to create a shield law.
So, confidential sources provide crucial information to
reporters that helps them to share full and impactful stories
with the public, and government attempts to undermine the
confidentiality of those sources erodes the press' ability to
perform that function. If the press cannot protect its sources,
then important truths may never come to light, and Americans in
our democracy suffer.
Unfortunately, under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, going back decades, we've seen the government
in attempts to crack down on leaks seize phone and email
records from journalists or seek to compel them to reveal the
identities of their sources.
For example, the Trump Administration's Department of
Justice seized phone records from three Washington Post
reporters and tried to obtain their emails in an attempt to
identify confidential sources. The Trump DOJ similarly
attempted to obtain these types of records from reporters at
CNN and The New York Times. That's, of course, on top of that
administration's other troubling threats to press freedom, such
as tracking, detaining, and interrogating journalists reporting
on conditions at the U.S.-Mexico border.
In response to these and other instances, the House four
times since 2007 passed with overwhelming bipartisan support a
Federal reporter shield law. That's legislation to protect
journalists and prevent the government from compelling them to
reveal their confidential sources with certain exceptions.
In fact, former Vice President Mike Pence, then a Member of
this Committee, first introduced such legislation in 2005. More
recently, Representatives Kevin Kiley and Jamie Raskin helped
spearhead passage of H.R. 4250, the Protect Reporters from
Exploitative State Spying Act, or the PRESS Act.
As mentioned, that bill passed the House this past January
unanimously by voice vote under suspension of the rules. That
is, as the Chair noted, after this Committee had reported it
favorably by a bipartisan 23 to 0 vote.
The PRESS Act would, among other things, create a qualified
Federal statutory privilege that protects journalists from
being compelled by a Federal entity to reveal confidential
sources and information. The bill also protects third-party
service providers, such as telecommunications carriers and
interactive computer services, from being compelled by the
government to reveal information on a journalist's account or
device.
Unfortunately, despite the House repeatedly and with strong
bipartisan support passing some form of Federal reporter shield
legislation, the Senate has yet to act.
Today's hearing should be an opportunity to spur the Senate
to action. We're concerned that our Republican colleagues
appear to have squandered that chance at a substantive hearing
and instead are trying to crank up some right-wing conspiracy
theories. Make no mistake, we intend to move forward and try to
promote both the PRESS Act and our constitutional protections.
There is, of course, little evidence of ideological bias at
CBS News, as has been suggested, and even if those allegations
were true, Congress would risk exceeding its constitutional
authority by intervening. Private news organizations, whether
CBS, MSNBC, or FOX, speak through their journalist employees.
If Congress tried to punish or shape news coverage, either
directly through legislation or indirectly through a pressure
campaign, it would run afoul of the spirit, if not the letter,
of the First Amendment and potentially violate the news
organizations' free speech rights and its right to editorial
control over its own content.
So, today, we hope to inquire further from our witnesses
about the importance of a Federal Shield Act and why it is long
past time for Congress to enact it. Our democracy is already
under assault on numerous fronts, and we should not be adding
fuel to the fire. So, let's focus instead on something that
would actually protect press freedom, would be completely
within our Article I authority and duties, and let's talk about
the critical need for a Federal reporter shield legislation.
I thank our witnesses for being here. I yield back.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Roy. The Committee will be in order.
I thank the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
Jordan, for his opening statement.
Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair.
It's not just the press that's under attack. Every single
liberty we enjoy under the First Amendment's been assault in
the last couple of years.
I mean, you think about it, your right to practice your
faith, your right to assemble, your right to petition the
government, free press, free speech, every right we enjoy.
Americans were--a couple of years ago, Americans were told they
couldn't go to church on Sunday. Think about that.
Two-and-half years ago, I spoke to the New Mexico
Republican Party in Amarillo, Texas, because they had to go to
Texas to get the freedom to assemble because they couldn't do
it in their own darn State where they pay taxes because their
Governor wouldn't let them.
Your right to petition the government, you want to petition
your Member of Congress, you couldn't do it in Congress,
because the Speaker wouldn't let you in your own darn Capital
you pay for.
The most important too are the free press and free speech.
We're going to hear about the press today, what's happened to
two of our witnesses and how freedom of the press, how they
went after Ms. Attkisson, what happened to Ms. Herridge. This
is scary.
Then just a couple of weeks ago, a couple of weeks ago I
went to the argument--and this should frighten us all--I went
to the argument in front of the Supreme Court. We had a Justice
of the United States Supreme--this is the big censorship case,
something this Committee's spent a lot of time on where Big
Government pressures Big Tech and Big Academia to censor
speech, not just conservative speech, all speech. That's
frightening.
We went to the argument in front of the Supreme Court. One
of the Justices said to the Solicitor General from Louisiana,
Counselor, your position has the First Amendment hamstringing
the government. That's exactly what it's supposed to do, for
goodness' sake.
So, this is about the First Amendment, and a free press is
essential to having a robust First Amendment and free debate in
our culture. If you don't have free debate, if you can't settle
your disputes by arguing and debating, the alternative is
frightening.
So, there is no more important hearing than this, and I
want to thank our Chair and I really want to thank our four
witnesses for being here. This is of critical importance. You
know what? This is why we have to pass the Press Shield Act.
The House has got it. Let's hope the Senate and the White House
can figure this out.
We passed this so we don't have this stuff happening to Ms.
Herridge that's happening right now, where she's--we actually
had a situation in this Committee room. We got some Members of
this Committee who were there that day, where my colleagues on
the other side--we had Matt Taibbi on the witness stand, and we
had colleagues on the other side pressuring him to divulge his
sources in a hearing in Congress, for goodness--I don't know.
To me, that's scary as well.
So, this is a critically important hearing with some great
witnesses. I look forward to hearing their testimony and the
questions that follow.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
I'll now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, over the course of the last two decades,
repeated overzealous prosecution of leaks to the press have
made it clear that Congress needs to enact a Federal reporters
shield law. Congress must protect journalists from being
compelled to reveal their confidential sources to ensure the
free flow of information in matters related to the public
interest.
During the 117th Congress, when I was Chair of the
Committee, we came together in a bipartisan vote to past the
PRESS Act, which would protect journalists and their
confidential sources from compelled disclosure except in
certain rare circumstances. It later passed the House in
similar bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, the Senate did not
act on the bill.
I was pleased, however, when the Committee, under Chair
Jordan's leadership, built on this strong action and moved the
PRESS Act once again in this Congress in a unanimous vote of 23
to nothing. It again passed the House by voice vote.
I think even a casual observer of the 118th Congress
understands just how rare it is for me, Chair Jordan, and
practically the entire House all to agree on the need for the
same piece of legislation.
We have repeatedly come together to advance an important
bill on a bipartisan basis. We continue to share the goal of
seeing this legislation become law. That is why it is
disappointing that, according to news reports, this hearing has
not really been called to serve as a forum for building greater
support for the bill, as the title of the hearing might
suggest. Instead, it appears that its true purpose is to
provide a forum to discuss allegations that Chair Jordan has
made surrounding the termination of one of our witnesses by a
news organization and to advance a false narrative about media
bias.
I am sympathetic to anyone who's been abruptly laid off
from their job, and I understand the resentment that someone
can feel against their former employer. In fact, CBS laid off
800 people, one of whom happened to be a close personal friend
of mine. Even if any allegations of so-called political bias
made today are true--and to be clear, I have no reason to
believe that they are--Congress is not the proper forum for
these personal grievances to be aired or resolved.
As we listen to the testimony today, we should remember
that news media organizations have their own First Amendment
rights, which include the right to exercise editorial judgment
about what does and does not get reported as news. News media
organizations also ultimately speak or act through their
employees and agents.
Barring some other unlawful reason for termination, like
race or sex discrimination, Congress does not have the
authority to meddle in the relationship between reporters and
their employing news organizations, especially if it is to
intervene in a purported conflict over what story to
investigate or not to investigate. To do so would, in my view,
run afoul of the First Amendment.
Indeed, some might even say that this very hearing is an
example of the government jawboning the news media over its
coverage or lack of coverage of a particular subject and then
improper intrusion into the affairs of the press.
If the history of overwhelming bipartisan support for the
PRESS Act is any indication, I would hope that we have
universal agreement on the dais that the government should
respect the independence of the free press and that we should
continue our work to protect journalists from being compelled
to reveal their sources. That is where our focus should
properly lay. We should be jawboning the real barrier to
achieving important protection from press freedom, the U.S.
Senate, which for the fourth time is sitting on a reporter--on
the Federal reporters--is sitting on Federal reporters shield
legislation that the House passed in overwhelmingly bipartisan
fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening
statement.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses.
Ms. Catherine Herridge. Ms. Herridge is an award-winning
journalist who most recently served as the Senior Investigative
Correspondent for CBS News from 2019-2024. Previously, she
served as the Chief Intelligence Correspondent for FOX News
from 1996-2019.
Ms. Mary Cavallaro. Ms. Cavallaro is the Chief Broadcast
Officer for the News and Broadcast Department at SAG-AFTRA, a
position she has held since 2010. Ms. Cavallaro is responsible
for seeing--overseeing the negotiation and administration of
over 250 labor agreements with network and local broadcast
employers nationwide.
Ms. Sharyl Attkisson. Ms. Attkisson is a five-time Emmy
award-winning journalist and a recipient of the Edward R.
Murrow Award for investigative reporting. She has been a
journalist for 30 years and is currently the Managing Editor
and host of ``Full Measure.''
Ms. Nadine Farid Johnson. Ms. Farid Johnson is the Policy
Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia
University. She previously worked at PEN America, the State
Department, and in private practice as a patent litigator.
We will begin by swearing you in.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
Ms. Herridge, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE V. HERRIDGE
Ms. Herridge. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, Chair Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members
of the Subcommittee. I'm here today with a deep sense of
gratitude and humility. I appreciate the Subcommittee taking
the time to focus again on the importance of protecting
reporter sources and the vital safeguards provided by the PRESS
Act.
As you know, in February, I was held in contempt of court
for refusing to disclose my confidential sources on a national
security story. I think my current situation can help put the
importance of the PRESS Act into context.
One of our children recently asked me if I would go to
jail, if we would lose our house, and if we would lose our
family savings to protect my reporting sources. I wanted to
answer that in this United States, where we say we value
democracy and the rule of a vibrant and free press, that it was
impossible, but I could not offer that assurance.
The bipartisan PRESS Act, which came out of this House
Committee, would put an end to the sort of legal jeopardy that
I have experienced firsthand in the Federal Courts. Without the
legislation, more journalists will run the uncertainty of the
contempt gauntlet in the future.
This legislation will provide protections for every working
journalist in the United States, now and for the next
generation. The legislation provides strong protections at the
Federal level for reporters and their sources. It would block
litigants and the Federal Government from prying into a
reporter's files except when there's an imminent threat of
violence, including terrorism and in defamation cases.
At the State level, similar rules are already in place to
protect press freedom. It is my sincere hope that the passage
of the PRESS Act will provide similar protections at the
Federal level. I hope that I am the last journalist who has to
spend two years in the Federal Courts fighting to protect my
confidential sources.
My current situation arises from a Privacy Act lawsuit. I
am only a witness in the case. It is not common for these cases
to reach the stage of holding a reporter in contempt. When such
cases happen, they have profound consequences, impacting every
journalist in the United States.
Forcing a reporter to disclose confidential sources would
have a crippling effect on investigative journalism, because
without reliable assurances of confidentiality, sources will
not come forward.
The First Amendment provides protection for the press
because an informed electorate is at the foundation of our
democracy. If confidential sources are not protected, I fear
investigative journalism is dead. Each day I feel the weight of
that responsibility.
As you know, I was held in contempt of court for upholding
the basic journalistic principle of maintaining the pledge of
confidentiality to my sources. I have complete respect for the
Federal Court and the judicial process, and I'm not here to
litigate the case. It will play out before the Appellate Court
in Washington, DC. The fact that I have been fighting in the
courts for two years and that I am now facing potentially
crippling fines of $800 a day to protect my reporting sources
underscores the vital importance of the PRESS Act.
When you go through major life events as I have in recent
weeks, losing your job, losing your company health insurance,
having your reporting files seized by your former employee, and
being held in contempt of court, gives you clarity.
The First Amendment, the protection of confidential
sources, and a free press are my guiding principles. They are
my North Star.
When I was laid off in February, an incident reinforced in
my mind the importance of protecting confidential sources. CBS
News locked me out of the building and seized hundreds of pages
of my reporting files, including confidential source
information. Multiple sources said they were concerned that by
working with me to expose government corruption and misconduct
they would be identified and exposed.
I pushed back. With the public support of my union, SAG-
AFTRA, the records were returned. CBS News' decision to seize
my reporting records crossed a red line that I believe should
never be crossed again by any media organization in the future.
The litigation and being held in contempt have taken a toll
on me and my career. This is not a battle you can fight alone.
I am grateful for the support of fellow journalists and
multiple First Amendment organizations, including the Reporters
Committee for Press Freedom, the Freedom of the Press
Foundation, the Coalition for Women in Journalism, the Knight
First Amendment Institute, the Society of Professional
Journalists, as well as the Columbia Journalism School of which
I am a graduate. I have also been fortunate to have the support
from my former employer as I continue to fight this case. Not
many journalists could count on a former employer, in this case
FOX News, to support a costly and vigorous defense of the First
Amendment.
That is why the PRESS Act comes at the right time, when
independent journalism and news platforms are expanding
opportunities for reporting diverse voices that strengthen our
democracy.
I know I join many journalists who are encouraged by the
recent comments of the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who
said he hopes to have the legislation through the Senate and on
the President's desk this year.
I deeply appreciate the Committee's commitment to this
legislation and holding this public hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Herridge follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Herridge.
Ms. Cavallaro, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARY CAVALLARO
Ms. Cavallaro. Good morning. Thank you, Committee Chair
Jordan, Subcommittee Chair Roy, Committee Ranking Member
Nadler, Subcommittee Ranking Member Scanlon, and distinguished
Members of this Subcommittee, for this opportunity to testify
on, ``Fighting for a Free Press: Protecting Journalists and
Their Sources.''
My name is Mary Cavallaro. I serve as the Chief Broadcast
Officer for SAG-AFTRA, a national union of over 160,000 members
that represents professionals in the entertainment and media
industries. I am responsible for overseeing the union's
collective bargaining agreements with our news and broadcast
employers across the country.
I was invited here today for the purpose of providing
testimony in support of the most basic of First Amendment
principles: Protecting journalists from being compelled to
reveal their sources and the critical nature of the
confidential source relationship.
Government intrusion on the relationship between a reporter
and their sources undermines the foundation of the freedom of
press. A free press is essential to our democracy. To quote
Walter Cronkite, a longtime SAG-AFTRA member, ``Freedom of the
press is not just important to democracy; it is democracy.''
While SAG-AFTRA's core responsibility is to negotiate,
administer, and enforce the collective bargaining agreements
under which our members work, the union is also charged with
advocating on behalf of our members for legislation that
directly impacts their work and their profession.
SAF-AFTRA's legislative work has recently focused on
artificial intelligence, protecting intellectual property, and
restricting noncompete clauses in employment contracts, all of
which are important initiatives. For decades, the union has
enthusiastically supported the passage of a Federal reporter
shield law.
We thank the House Judiciary Committee for its leadership
on this issue and its bipartisan unanimous passage of the PRESS
Act at the Committee level. We also thank the entire U.S. House
of Representatives for its unanimous passage of this vital
legislation in January 2024, and call on the U.S. Senate to
expeditiously pass this legislation and send it to President
Biden for signature.
If signed into law, the PRESS Act would establish the first
Federal press shield law in United States history and will
significantly strengthen press freedom by safeguarding
journalists and their confidential sources.
The PRESS Act creates a Federal statutory privilege to
shield journalists from being compelled to reveal their
confidential sources and prevents Federal law enforcement
agencies from abusing subpoena power to access journalists'
email and phone records. This long-overdue legislation
represents a significant leap forward, not just for
journalists, but for the sanctity of journalism itself and for
the constitutional right to freedom of the press.
SAF-AFTRA stands in solidarity with journalists, their
employers, and press advocacy groups who share the common goal
of a Federal shield law for journalists.
The PRESS Act is bipartisan legislation that guarantees and
protects our most basic of First Amendment principles. The
freedom of the press to disseminate information to the public
free from government interference of any kind is essential to
our democracy. Protecting a journalist's relationship with a
source is critical to allowing stories to be told and essential
to holding our elected officials and others to account for
their actions.
The press is America's watchdog, responsible for serving
the public interest by working to uncover and investigate
government and corporate abuse, overreach, and malfeasance. Any
form of government control over journalists could shield the
instinct of a potential source to come forward and tell their
stories to journalists, depriving the American people of
critical information and the ability to hold those in power
publicly accountable.
Recent events and ongoing litigation involving journalists
and their employers and their shared concern for protecting
sources have created some renewed interest and energy around
this issue. SAG-AFTRA is hopeful that this interest and energy
will be used in a productive and nonpartisan way to move the
PRESS Act forward.
Thank you again for this opportunity to speak before this
Subcommittee today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cavallaro follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Cavallaro.
Ms. Attkisson, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF SHARYL ATTKISSON
Ms. Attkisson. Good morning. It's an honor to be here and
also to get to meet Catherine, finally.
In decades of reporting nationally at CNN, CBS, PBS, and
for the last nine years on my TV show, ``Full Measure,''
countless news stories that I broke or facets of them could not
have been reported without sources whose identities needed to
be protected. To name just a few, Enron, BP oil spill, TARP
bank bailout, follow-the-money investigations on taxpayer
spending, congressional oversight, congressional fundraising,
prescription drug and vaccine dangers, Haiti earthquake aid, K
Street lobbying, green energy failures, waste and fraud at the
Red Cross, Firestone Tires, Benghazi, and Fast and Furious.
The last 12 stories I mentioned, thanks to some information
provided by sources who could not be quoted by name, received
recognition from the Emmy Awards. Multiply that by thousands of
reporters and countless stories, and it's fair to argue that a
lot of important facts would never have been exposed if
journalists couldn't ensure protection of our sensitive
sources' identities.
Today's managed information landscape makes it more
difficult for journalists and our sources to report on ethical
lapses, wrongdoing, and crimes. More often than not, the truth
teller, when named, is smeared and ruined, while the wrongdoers
carry on. They escape accountability and may even get promoted.
They've seen what's happened to Assange and Snowden, their
earth-shattering revelations quickly eclipsed by organized
efforts to distract by controversializing them.
So, it makes sense to ask, what's the impact if we can no
longer assure our sources that we can protect their identities?
It's not a new concern. Years ago, after adverse court
decisions started coming down on this front, I was at CBS, and
we began having to consider whether a confidential source in a
story would be OK with ultimately having his identity revealed
if a judge ordered it.
Obviously, the answer was often no. I could no longer
provide assurances to a whistleblower who feared for his career
or safety that I could guarantee protection of his identity.
Some stories still got done, but many became nonstarters.
There's no way to quantify with any certainty what we've lost,
but I don't think there are many investigative reporters who
would say it's not having an impact.
Their ideas to help such as the PRESS Act that would
generally bar Federal agencies from forcing telecommunications
firms to turn over records belonging to journalists, but it's
important to note that some of the most egregious intrusions on
press freedoms don't happen that way.
Our intelligence agencies have been working--pardon me.
This is important. I need to clear my throat.
Our intelligence agencies have been working hand-in-hand
with telecommunications firms for decades, with billions of
dollars in dark contracts and secretive arrangements. They
don't need to ask for permission to access journalist records
or those of Congress or regular citizens. Current efforts to
reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act relate to this. There's a lengthy record of
government surveillance abuses to be found in just the little
we've been able to learn about.
Intelligence officials have misled Congress about
surveilling U.S. citizens, even spying on journalists and
political figures, their staff, and allies. It's been a known
problem for decades. An inspector general report in 2020 found
the FBI violated Woods Procedures safeguards in every single
wiretap audited.
Pardon me.
In just 29 FISA applications reviewed, there were 409
errors. Even when caught and pressed, the FBI only had fessed
up to half of them. It was all brushed off as innocent mistakes
and poor training, as usual.
It's been 11 years since CBS News officially announced that
I was targeted by unauthorized intrusions into my work
computer. Subsequent forensics unearthed government-controlled
IP addresses used in the intrusions and proved that not only
did the guilty parties monitor my work in real time, but they
also accessed my Fast and Furious files, got into the larger
CBS system, planted classified documents deep in my operating
system, and were able to listen in on conversations by
activating Skype audio.
I sued after it was clear the Department of Justice would
not hold its own accountable. The case is the first we know of
in which a journalist spied on by the government received a
clerk's default against an agent working for government parties
in a surveillance operation. It's a small victory because he
was soon reported dead, which means we can't access potential
information leading to the larger players. Besides that, I've
learned that wrongdoers in the Federal Government have their
own shield laws that protect them from accountability.
Making sure journalists can protect their sources and do
the constitutionally protected job that we do is critical, but
new laws won't necessarily impact dishonest players in
government who have proven more than capable of and willing to
skirt laws to access the information they want.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Attkisson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Attkisson.
Ms. Farid Johnson, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF NADINE FARID JOHNSON
Ms. Farid Johnson. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, Chair Roy, and Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members
of the Subcommittee, for convening today's hearing. It is an
honor and a privilege to present this testimony.
The mission of the Knight Institute, where I serve as
policy director, is to defend the freedoms of speech and the
press in the digital age. Our work is concentrated on the
intersection of First Amendment freedoms and new technology,
and dedicated to protecting and promoting a system of free
expression that serves contemporary democracies.
Our press freedom projects, like all our work, focus on
fortifying the infrastructure of First Amendment law and values
to meet 21st century pressures. For journalists and media
organizations, those pressures are formidable. They stem from
surveillance tools in both government and private hands that
create new vulnerabilities for reporters, powerful government
and private entities that are fiercely resistant to public
oversight and accountability, and the capacity of machines to
generate and disseminate news and news-like creations.
The Institute is the leading voice for the First Amendment
rights of journalists and news organizations to publish vital
information in the public interest. Our aim is to strengthen
the constitutional and statutory protections that will minimize
threats and ensure that journalists and news organizations can
carry out their vital work.
No single piece of legislation is as strongly correlated
with these efforts as the bipartisan Protect Reporters from
Exploitative State Spying, or PRESS Act, introduced in this
Congress by Representative Kiley of the Subcommittee, co-
authored by Representative Raskin, and passed in the House.
Modern news gathering requires that reporters are able to
give assurances of confidentiality to their sources.
Testimonial protections for journalists are essential to core
First Amendment values. Yet, the Supreme Court jurisprudence on
the protection of journalist source materials is ambiguous. In
its 1972 seminal case on the topic, Branzburg v. Hayes, the
Court acknowledged that news gathering is not without First
Amendment protections but did not delineate what the
protections might be.
The murkiness of the Branzburg decision has led to
confusion about its holding and inconsistency in its
application. Illustrating this is the patchwork of Federal
Circuit Court tests that has emerged in the 52 years since the
Court's decision. The differences in approach result in
unpredictability and inconsistency and ultimately compromise
the ability of journalists to do the work we need them to do.
Without strong First Amendment protections, journalists are
less likely to be able to engage confidential sources, as fewer
of them will come forward. When that flow of information stops,
it means the American public is less informed.
Despite widespread shield laws and court-recognized
reporters' privileges across the States, the precarious
landscape of the Federal level remains, meaning congressional
action is urgently needed. For these reasons, the Knight
Institute fully supports the bipartisan PRESS Act. It is
critical to a free press, protecting journalists from State-
sanctioned surveillance, and reaffirming their First Amendment
rights.
Passing the PRESS Act is also important because of the
changing nature of what it means to be a journalist today. We
know that in the digital age a significant amount of important
reporting is done by journalists who do not fit a traditional
mold. Whether writing for The Washington Post or offering a
subscription on Substack, journalists should be afforded a
clear, consistent, predictable protection from policies that
account for a range of legitimate and valuable journalistic
activities.
Clarifying who qualifies for protection via a Federal
shield bill is critical to preventing misguided attempts by the
government to compel journalists and media outlets to reveal
source information in contravention of their First Amendment
rights. It would also ensure durability across administrations,
leading to less uncertainty for journalists and media outlets
across the country.
The PRESS Act addresses this issue, offering definitions
that account for the broad landscape of journalism today,
better protecting an appropriately wide swath of reporters and
reporting activity. The Act also commendably protects
journalists' communications, ensuring that information held by
third-party phone and internet providers is not secretly seized
by the government. These provisions are critical to protecting
journalists' First Amendment rights.
There are, of course, situations in which competing
interests will be at play in the determination of whether
compelling the disclosure of information gained in the course
of an investigation or other journalistic act is warranted. The
PRESS Act appropriately addresses these concerns as well with a
series of exceptions.
In sum, passage of the PRESS Act into law would provide
critical support to the free press, thereby benefiting all
Americans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farid Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Farid Johnson.
We will now proceed with questions under the five-minute
rule. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've seen a growing number of increasingly aggressive acts
by the Federal Government and its agencies to suppress debate
in many different forums: The IRS intimidation of Tea Party
activists through its abuse of its authority, the use of
intelligence in law enforcement agencies to suppress vital
information, such as the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop,
or dissenting views on COVID, all that turned out to be factual
and correct.
The beating heart of a democracy is freedom of speech.
That's the right of every citizen to express their opinions
freely. It's by this discussion that we have the tools to sort
out fact from fiction or wisdom from folly or right from wrong.
That's how a free society finds its way. A free press is
absolutely fundamental to that process. Without it, the people
cannot make informed decisions or hold their government
accountable for its actions.
Human nature being what it is, we all know that the most
closely guarded secrets of the government are not those that
are marked top secret; it's those that are marked embarrassing.
It's precisely those embarrassing facts that are most important
for the public to know.
Now, I agree with the ranking members that CBS has the
right to shape its own coverage, no matter how biased it might
be. When the government pressures any news outlet, or for that
matter any private party, to suppress or shape its coverage,
that crosses a very bright and dangerous line.
So, Ms. Herridge, do you know if CBS' actions were
influenced by the government in any way?
Mr. Roy. Use your mike.
Ms. Herridge. Pardon me. Pardon me.
Congressman, I'm not someone who's known to offer
speculation. So, I can't really answer that question directly.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Fair enough. With all the travail that
you've been dragged through by the government, has anybody
within the government been held accountable for these acts
against you and your freedom?
Ms. Herridge. Congressman, based on my experience, I feel
that we're in a very dangerous place as journalists. I'm facing
crippling fines, up to $800 a day, for protecting my
confidential sources. I'm fortunate that that has been stayed,
pending the appeal.
Mr. McClintock. Who's responsible for that, though? I mean,
who are the actors within the government that are waging war
against the freedom of indivisuals--journalists like yourself
to report the facts that the American people need to form their
own opinions?
Ms. Herridge. Well, if you're referring to my particular
case, I want to be respectful of the ongoing litigation. It's
in front of the Appellate Court. I want to emphasize that I am
only a witness in that case.
Mr. McClintock. Let me ask you this. Has anybody been held
accountable for these acts against you?
Ms. Herridge. No.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Ms. Attkisson, what's your experience?
Ms. Attkisson. Well, I think it's interesting to hear
people say--and I agree with this--that the government should
not be intervening in news coverage. In my experience at CBS,
that happens every day. Members of the Committees, heads of
Committees, Members of Congress, and the White House call the
bureau in Washington, DC, contacts that they have, editors, and
managers up in New York, to try to shape our coverage and--
Mr. McClintock. Well, that I don't find particularly
objectionable, as long as there is no force or threat of force
behind that. Do you find that to be the case or--
Ms. Attkisson. I don't know what was said. I just know they
called. There's no physical force threatened, but there
certainly is a great deal of pressure weighing on the networks
in terms of their coverage.
Mr. McClintock. Well, what about government Acts directly?
Have you encountered such intimidation yourself directly from
the government or is that all kind of channeled through your
employers?
Ms. Attkisson. Well, I felt a great deal of pressure
channeled through my employers. I was told that certain stories
weren't going to air because we were getting phone calls, and
even though there was nothing wrong with the stories, let us
just let it rest for a day. Let's pick it up another time.
They're really mad this time.
There was no objection over the content of the story or the
facts. It was just--as I was told, they just didn't like it or
it's a story that they felt was unfavorable at times.
Mr. McClintock. If they were offering additional facts that
might have been ignored, if they were offering different
opinions, that's freedom of speech. If behind those suggestions
was the threat of force, that's a completely different matter.
Do you agree?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes. My position was, when political
officials call into the newsroom, there should be a policy
where we tell them, if they object to something or have a
factual issue, that they should put it in writing and send it
in. There are these extensive conversations that go on behind
the scenes. I only know about a few of them, a relative few of
them. I'm sure they happen in other scenarios as well.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member for any questions
he might have under the five-minute rule.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Attkisson, the question of FISA aside--and you know
that FISA's renewal is currently controversially before the
Congress--should I read or hear your testimony to say that the
PRESS Act would not be sufficient?
Ms. Attkisson. In my view, to handle some of the problems
we've discussed, I'm not saying it shouldn't be passed, and I'm
not an expert on what--
Mr. Nadler. No, but is it not sufficient?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes, I think that won't handle.
Mr. Nadler. What else should we do?
Ms. Attkisson. Well, I think it's a global problem that has
to do with sending a message of oversight to the intelligence
agencies that we know have for decades violated rights and made
policies that are contrary to Constitution and so on.
I don't think there's been an effort they think is serious.
I feel like the intelligence agencies feel like they're running
the Committees here rather than the Committees conducting
oversight of them and that there needs to be something they
understand that they would be held accountable when they do
things. I don't know what that looks like in practice, but I
don't think the law is--
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Farid Johnson, in the Branzburg case, the Supreme Court
declined to recognize the First Amendment privilege for news
gatherers. What is the source of Congress' authority to provide
such a privilege by statute?
Ms. Farid Johnson. Congress is absolutely authorized under
the Constitution to provide this privilege to create
legislation and promulgate legislation by statute to ensure
that these rights are enshrined further into law. In fact, my
understanding is that in Branzburg the Court invited Congress
to do so. So, we are really pleased that the House has acted in
this regard, and we look forward to the Senate doing so as
well.
Mr. Nadler. Ms. Farid Johnson, according to your written
testimony, in the decades since the Supreme Court decided
Branzburg, many Federal Circuit Courts have recognized some
form of qualified reporters' privilege. In that case, why is it
so important that we step into author a statutory reporter's
privilege like the PRESS Act?
Ms. Farid Johnson. That's right, sir, exactly. It's because
the law is unsettled. You have different landscapes across the
country where different Circuit Courts have different
interpretations of Branzburg. Actually, there is a decision at
one point where a Circuit Court judge said that the Branzburg
case is something like as clear as mud, right? It really has
not allowed for a clear understanding of that landscape.
With congressional action, the PRESS Act would reduce chill
on sources. It would help journalists do the work we need them
to do, because it would provide clarity in that landscape that
is now muddled and uncertain.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Farid Johnson, as we have heard, Ms. Herridge is
currently subject to a civil contempt order by a Federal judge
in Washington, DC, in a case where she has refused to provide
testimony regarding her confidential sources that may be
relevant to the private litigants' case against the government.
It so happens that the government defendants accused of
wrongdoing in that case include the FBI.
If the PRESS Act were law, would it have applied to Ms.
Herridge in her current circumstances? Is it important that
reporters who may be a third party to litigation brought by a
party other than the government also receive protection for
their First Amendment interests?
Ms. Farid Johnson. I do believe the PRESS Act, had it been
enacted at the time of litigation, would have played a role in
this, because the most important thing that the PRESS Act does
is that it forecloses the government from compelling journalist
disclosure of their sources.
Yes, I do believe it is important for there to be this
protection for journalists across the board.
Mr. Nadler. So, you believe it would protect--it would stop
the litigation against Ms. Herridge?
Ms. Farid Johnson. I believe vis-a-vis the compelling of
sources it would have played a role, yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member.
I will now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for
questions under the five-minute rule.
Ms. Hageman. Good morning, ladies, and thank you for being
here to address such an incredibly important issue.
Ms. Herridge, I'd like to start with you. About two months
ago, you were held in contempt and levied daily fines of $800
per day for your refusal to disclose your sources. This is
deeply concerning. What's more concerning, you are not the
first.
In an article related to your case, The Washington Post
reported how, in 2005, five national reporters were held in
contempt and levied fines of $500 per day. In 2008, a USA Today
reporter was held in contempt and faced daily fines of $5,000.
All these instances where reporters upheld their journalistic
integrity and protected their sources to ensure good reporting
for the American people, only to face rebuke and heavy-handed
enforcement by the courts which are intended to protect the
First Amendment.
Ms. Herridge, how fundamental to reporting is the
protection of your sources?
Ms. Herridge. Congresswoman, I have not lost a night's
sleep about my decision to protect my confidential sources.
That is the core of who I am as a journalist. I am facing
contempt fines because I am upholding the most basic principle
of journalism. If you cannot offer a source a promise of
confidentiality, as a journalist, your toolbox is empty: No
whistleblowers coming forward, no government official with
evidence of misconduct or corruption. What that means is that
it interrupts the free flow of information to the public. As
we've all recognized, journalism is about an informed
electorate which is the bedrock of our democracy.
If you had asked me 37 years ago when I started working
that I would be in the Federal Courts living a legal nightmare
to protect my sources, I would never have believed it.
I told you a story about my son. I would like to finish it.
At the end of the conversation, he said, ``Mom, you do what it
takes. I've got your back.''
I thought, if a teenager understands how sacred this pledge
is for every journalist, certainly Congress can pass the PRESS
Act and codify these guarantees that will prevent cases like
mine in the future.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for that.
Do you think that the heavy-handed nature of these fines is
to compel quick disclosure of sources and not give reporters a
choice--a similar choice the way that you've exercised yours?
Ms. Herridge. Congressman, just ask yourself: How many
journalists can withstand fines, in my case, of $800 a day?
Mine's being stayed pending the appeal. In another case you
cited, it was $5,000 a day. These fines are designed that you
have to disclose your sources. You have to burn them. In a
marketplace where we have this explosion in independent
journalism and smaller outfits, they cannot withstand these
fines. They cannot mount a costly and vigorous legal defense of
the First Amendment.
That is why I think this is such a dangerous time and why
the PRESS Act can codify these guarantees and it can happen
with a very strong, in fact, the strongest bipartisan message
about the importance of the freedom of the press.
Ms. Hageman. Well, it doesn't just apply in your industry.
We have other agencies, and I think that it's a sign of a
tyrannical government when we give them the ability to levy
fines like this.
An example that I will use is that the EPA has the
authority to levy fines of $59,000 a day, and they do so, and
that's how they will force people into settlements and consent
decrees, even if they are not necessarily guilty. They cannot
withstand the pressure that they bring to bear when you have a
government that has that kind of authority.
So, I think that it applies in the First Amendment context
with our journalists, but I think it's a bigger issue that we
as Congress need to address across the board because, again, I
will use the word, it results in tyranny when you give agencies
or officials that kind of authority.
One thing that has been mentioned is that 32 States and
Washington, DC, have shield laws. However, not all States do,
and there is no Federal shield law, as each of you have
described. As seen in your case and the case of others, this
has then resulted in the courts actually being enlisted to
compel disclosure of your resources--of your sources.
In instances such as your case, what does a hostile court
system do for the protection of a free press?
Ms. Herridge. I think it presents another very significant
challenge for journalism.
As my colleague, Sharyl Attkisson, said, when you are
working with a whistleblower or you're working with a
government source who has access to real information--and what
I mean is information that is so important to get to the public
so they can make up their own minds, especially about
controversial issues--if you can't offer that assurance,
nobody's playing ball with you.
As a journalist, you are always asking yourself, in the
marketplace where we are today, what kind of assurances can I
provide? Can I go to the mat for this person? I've always
believed that I'm willing to go to the mat. I think I've shown
that in this contempt case. Not everyone is going to be able to
have that opportunity.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I thank you. I thank you for your
bravery. I thank you for what you've been willing to expose.
I thank you all for being willing to stand up to the
tyranny that we're seeing and the attack on the First
Amendment. It is critical for the freedom of every single
person in this room. So, thank you.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.
I will now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont, Ms.
Balint.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things that I've noticed in this Committee and
in my Subcommittees is that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle often overpromise and underdeliver. We are told
repeatedly that there are conspiracy theories. We have a
government that is going after individual and private citizens.
This is the narrative over and over and over again. As a new
one to this Committee, I'm always so disappointed when I feel
like there's actually a lot that we agree on. Press freedoms
and the PRESS Act is something that we were able to all come
together on, and that's where our attention should be. We
should always make sure that we have a free and protected
press.
Now, what I'm hearing is really about employment disputes
with news agencies that are now being conflated into some kind
of conspiracy theory, once again, of the government going
after, in this case, not just private individuals but the
press. Personal grievances, witness' personal grievances are
not actually attacks on the First Amendment and the free press.
From what I've heard from this hearing so far and the materials
that we were given in preparation of this, it seems pretty
clear to me that most of the allegations that have been made so
far involve disputes over what are essentially employment and
editorial decisionmaking by private news organizations in the
context of news gathering, public reporting, which we all
desperately need in this country.
Ms. Balint. As I said, we came together to support the
PRESS Act. We all agree that it's an important piece of
legislation to protect.
I wish we spent more time in this Committee really talking
about important issues and not, once again, having the
colleagues overpromise and underdeliver.
If I believed every single time of the conspiracy theories
that are pulled before this Committee, I would have to believe
that there was a boogeyman behind every corner, under every
rock. It's absurd, it's absolutely absurd, and it prevents us
from doing the real work that we need to do to protect a free
press, which we desperately need.
Now, Ms. Farid Johnson, could you explain to us what is
jawboning? Could you explain that to us?
Ms. Farid Johnson. Yes. Jawboning is the act of coercion by
the government to an entity to get it to--well, in the case
we've seen so far, to get it to change its positioning,
programming, what have you, in terms of what it presents to the
public.
Ms. Balint. Do you have concerns about congressional
hearings such as this one or statements that officeholders make
that could be intended to influence editorial decisions at news
organizations?
Ms. Farid Johnson. News organizations are entitled to
decide for themselves what subjects to cover, and the First
Amendment protects the editorial decisions they make about
their news coverage.
It would be unconstitutional for any government official to
attempt to coerce a news organization through legal threats or
exercise of a State's coercive power.
Ms. Balint. Could jawboning be considered unconstitutional?
Ms. Farid Johnson. Well, as you know, we filed an amicus
brief in the Murthy case that is before the Supreme Court. What
we talked about there is we have said publicly, actually, that
the government has an important role to play as a participant
in public discourse, including trying to persuade, for example,
social media platforms to change their policies, but not to
engage in coercion to do so. There is a line there, and that
line is critically important.
Ms. Balint. Ms. Farid Johnson, what does it mean for free
public discourse if public officials can informally intimidate
or influence editorial decisionmaking, such as in a hearing
such as this one?
Ms. Farid Johnson. The critical thing is that it cannot be
coercion. We want to ensure that the First Amendment
protections that are afforded to news organizations, for
example, are maintained. So that would mean that there cannot
be that level of influence cannot go into coercion. Again, of
course, we believe the government has an important role to play
in terms of public discourse.
Ms. Balint. Thank you so much, Ms. Farid Johnson. I really
appreciate your time.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont.
We're going to do one more round of questions before we
break for the Prime Minister. So, I'm going to recognize the
gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think people go into investigative reporting to get
rich. I think it's an incredibly important service that was
disappointing.
I just want to react a little bit. I don't think being held
in contempt, either civilly or criminally, is either (A) a
conspiracy theory or (B) part of an employment dispute. You're
either going to be civilly held in contempt and fined until you
disclose your source or, worse yet, you're going to be put in
an 8 10 with bars on the window--that's what contempt
means--for not disclosing a source.
So, if there's a more chilling effect on the right of the
free press and right for North Dakota citizens to be informed
about what's going on, I'd like to know it.
Ms. Herridge, you've been held in contempt. Do you feel
like that's part of an employment dispute?
Ms. Herridge. I want to have complete respect for the legal
process. My case is being litigated. No, these are separate
matters, Congressman.
Mr. Armstrong. I'm hopeful soon that the Senate will take
up the PRESS Act and add a Federal shield law for reporters
being compelled to reveal confidential sources.
Ms. Attkisson, I am under the impression that reporters in
most States have shield law protection, but Federal judges and
courts are not bound by the same laws?
Ms. Attkisson. I'm terribly sorry, I'm not familiar with
the status of the States versus--
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I know in North Dakota we have a
shield law, and in a lot of different States they do.
In 2011, you reported on the Obama--and I want to back up
just a sec.
We act like this is new stuff, but this has been going on
for a long time. We've had a lot of talks about the DOJ,
Twitter, Section 230, and liability and immunity and all those
things. In 2011, you reported on the Obama Administrations's
Operation Fast and Furious operation, in which ATF purposely
allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal
straw buyers.
Were confidential sources and information critical to
informing the public about that scandal?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Would you have been able to shed light on
the Federal Government selling weapons, including grenade
launchers and antiaircraft weapons, to the Mexican drug cartels
without guaranteeing confidentiality of your sources?
Ms. Attkisson. It would have been tough. There would have
been something to report, but not what we ended up reporting.
Mr. Armstrong. When you were reporting on the security
lapses in the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack, do you think you
would have been able to shed light on the Federal Government's
failure to maintain embassy security without guaranteeing
confidentiality of your sources?
Ms. Attkisson. Some of it, yes, but some of it, no.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you, like me, believe it's important for
the American people to be informed of these things, along with
waste, fraud, and abuse by the Federal Government, and we
should do what we can to ensure robust media scrutiny of those
government officials?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. Even if that includes Members of Congress?
Ms. Attkisson. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. Does the status quo, where sources need to
depend on a reporter and their outlet's financial tolerance or
physical tolerance for contempt punishment, equate to a
functional, sensible system?
Ms. Attkisson. No. One quick example. A lot of times a
source will end up going on the record, which is preferable.
You can't begin the conversation many times if you can't start
out by telling him as you begin to talk that he's not going to
be identified yet.
Mr. Armstrong. Does the current system have a chilling
effect on potential confidential sources and whistleblowers?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. If we pass the PRESS Act--you've talked a
little bit about the PRESS Act and where you think it's
deficient and whatever. You agree it would be helpful at least?
Ms. Attkisson. It seems like it would be helpful.
Mr. Armstrong. In the last minute and 30 seconds, I think
we can deal with this. I think there's certain things that we
have to recognize.
I'm a former criminal defense attorney. Confidentiality
with my clients is absolutely essential to deal with those
things.
I think there are a lot of different similarities. You have
to be as mentally tough as anybody to be an investigative
reporter.
We're sitting here right now talking about these things. At
the same time, we got a letter from the DOJ saying that they
can't release an audiotape, after they've already given us the
transcript, from a computer where it was tried to be erased,
but only found later, because it would have a chilling effect
on potential witnesses coming forward to talk about a crime.
That's what the letter said.
At the same time, we have a DOJ going to investigative
reporters saying: I know you guaranteed these people
confidentiality to report against their government doing
something bad against a U.S. citizen, but I am going to force
you to expose that or I'm going to hold you in civil contempt,
criminal contempt, or all of those things.
Does that seem a little bit hypocritical to you, Ms.
Attkisson?
Ms. Attkisson. There are many things that seem to be double
standardish, one way for them and another way for us.
Mr. Armstrong. They're literally saying: We can't release
something because otherwise we won't ever be able to
investigate anything again.
Which, by the way, is patently false. Also, at the same
time, when they don't like something any of you all are
writing, right, left, center, conservative, or liberal, they
say: I want to know who your source is.
Ms. Attkisson. I get it.
Mr. Armstrong. I do too, and I think it's very, very
unfortunate.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I'll now recognize my colleague from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Chair Roy, I'm very grateful for your
courtesies and the courtesies of this Committee, the Ranking
Member, the courtesies of Ms. Scanlon.
The good news that I heard as we were concluding your last
question, Ms. Attkisson, is that the PRESS Act does help. I
heard that.
Ms. Attkisson. It seems like it would, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. So, we need to--the word
``investigative,'' I hope that you want us as Members of
Congress to investigate so we get it right, so that this very
hallowed amendment--or Bill of Rights and the First Amendment--
is taken seriously. I take it very seriously.
I appreciate the work that all of you do in spite of the
obstacles that you face. This is America, and we have mountains
and valleys.
I would like to get a sense from all of you where we are in
the comfort level of your protection.
I'm going to start, Ms. Farid Johnson, I appreciate the
institute at Columbia, I believe, and I want to make sure--
we've got the PRESS Act that may need to be reimagined. We're
looking at other legislation that allows investigative
reporters to work but not--I think there's a fine line
between--I don't want to use the term ``abuse'' on both sides,
but that there's a fine line.
So, I want to start with you, Ms. Farid Johnson. What more
care do we need to give to have the work of an investigative
reporter work?
I'm going to ask each of you that question. I think that
will help us. I'll be finished, and I'll have to get another
hearing at another point to go into more deeply concerned
issues.
Ms. Farid Johnson, if you would quickly.
Ms. Farid Johnson. So, I think the first thing that you
need to do is to ensure the PRESS Act gets passed into law and
signed.
I think it's also important to remember and to recognize
this is a fraught time for journalists. We have new
surveillance technologies. We have a question of funding for
journalism itself.
So, it's really important to do what Congress can do in the
immediate term to protect information that is vital to our
democracy, which is to protect journalists and allow them to do
the job we need them to do.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you concluding your testimony by
saying that would be to pass the PRESS Act and have funding?
Ms. Farid Johnson. The first thing Congress should do, yes,
is to pass the PRESS Act and ensure that it is signed into law
to protect journalists and allow them to be able to give
assurances to their sources that they will not be revealed.
There is, of course, a bigger question about funding for
journalism as a professional as a whole, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
Ms. Attkisson, where do we need to go with this?
Ms. Attkisson. (1) An outstanding issue is, regardless of
what laws are passed, we know from the factual record that
there are bad actors inside our agencies that will violate
laws. So, a law doesn't necessarily provide full protection.
(2) When a citizen tries to get redress for something like that
in civil courts as I'm doing, I found that the Federal
Government has inordinate protections, their own shield laws
I'll call them. They have immunity. We have to get permission
from them, the alleged guilty party, to get depositions and
information.
I think this is something that needs to be fixed by
Congress, the broad immunity granted to people who may be doing
wrong inside government.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is there any detriment to the IE, I'm on
another--on the AI, is there another detriment to the fact that
AI exists among us?
Ms. Attkisson. I'll bet there is, but I'm not an expert on
that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. We're back-to-back hearings.
If you would, Ms. Cavallaro, what more do we need to do?
Ms. Cavallaro. So, SAG-AFTRA has for decades supported a
Federal shield law. We would first hope that the PRESS Act
passes. I think that's a priority. I think we need to take that
first step.
I do think there are other challenges facing journalism and
journalists that we would love to use our voice as a labor
union representing journalists to advocate for. I do think that
it's a priority. I think the idea that this passed unanimously
and there is bipartisan support should mean it's something that
we should be able to move forward quickly and expeditiously.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We're going to do a deep dive on that.
I want to just quickly finish with Ms. Attkisson.
Ms. Herridge. Herridge. Yes, Herridge.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm looking at Ms. Herridge.
Ms. Herridge. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If you would.
Ms. Herridge. Sure. Thank you for the question.
I agree with my colleagues. I think the imperative is to
get the PRESS Act through the Senate and on the President's
desk.
It's going to close a gap in the Federal courts. It's going
to bring consistency between the State shield and the Federal
shield laws. I just think a lot of good will follow from that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, Mr. Chair, I'm very grateful for the
time given. I think we are committed to taking a deep dive on
this very important issue. First Amendment rights are pivotal,
and I want to be a part of helping as opposed to undermining.
Thank you so very much. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Texas.
I'll now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr.
Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Attkisson, you wrote stories critical of the Obama
Administration. Is that accurate?
Ms. Attkisson. Yes. May I point out, it wasn't put in a
political light.
Chair Jordan. No.
Ms. Attkisson. There were also stories that some would
consider critical of the Bush Administration.
Chair Jordan. Well, let's say it this way: You wrote
stories critical of the government.
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Yes. You factually reported.
You did it on Fast and Furious. You did it on Benghazi and
other issues.
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Chair Jordan. Even before, as you said, on the Bush
Administration.
Then strange things started happening to you, right.
Ms. Attkisson. Yes.
Chair Jordan. You had a computer you think gets--your phone
gets bugged, you believe, and things happened to your computer
after you wrote stories critical of the government.
Ms. Attkisson. Right.
Chair Jordan. That's scary, right.
Ms. Attkisson. Yes. It's not a good feeling, right.
Chair Jordan. It would frighten everybody.
Ms. Herridge, you wrote stories critical of the Biden
Administration. Is that true?
Ms. Herridge. That's fair.
Chair Jordan. You wrote a number of things, about the
laptop issue, about Hunter Biden, and all kinds of things you
wrote critical of the Biden family, the Biden business
operation, the Biden brand, and all that stuff.
Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I reported out the facts of the
story. I called balls and strikes.
Chair Jordan. You sure did. You sure did. You reported the
facts. Then CBS fired you. Is that right?
Ms. Herridge. My position was terminated.
Chair Jordan. Yes. You're an award-winning journalist.
How long did you work at CBS?
Ms. Herridge. I worked at CBS News for 4\1/2\ years. During
that period, we won major awards. I was part of an Emmy-winning
team. I was nominated for investigative Emmys.
I think the most important projects were projects that
drove legislation here on the Hill that positively impacted a
million veterans.
Chair Jordan. So, award-winning journalist, won all kinds
of awards, had worked there almost five years, had extensive
experience at a different major network prior to that, where
you were also an award-winning journalist, done all kinds of
reporting critical of the government there as well, and then
you get fired.
It's worse than that, isn't it? Because they didn't just
fire you. What else did they do?
Ms. Herridge. On February 13th, when I was told on a Zoom
call that my employment was terminated, I was locked out of my
emails and I was locked out of the office. CBS News seized
hundreds of pages of my reporting files, including confidential
source information.
Chair Jordan. That's not normal, is it?
Ms. Herridge. No. That's not my experience in the other two
networks that I've worked at or with my colleagues at CBS News.
When the network of Walter Cronkite seizes your reporting
files, including confidential source information, that is an
attack on investigative journalism.
Chair Jordan. Yes, it sure is.
I'm just trying to--it seems to me there's a pattern
developing here. You're critical of the government, in Ms.
Attkisson's situation, and shazam, they start doing all kinds
of strange things to your phone lines and to your computer.
You're critical of the government at a major news
organization and you're an award-winning journalist, you've
been there five years, you get fired.
It's not just that you got fired. In fact, you can--we
can--maybe there's nothing to that. What we do know is they
seized your documents. That's scary as well.
You talk about a chilling effect on the First Amendment. I
don't know how it could be more chilling.
Now, thank goodness, the lady sitting beside you, they
stepped in, right? Because they're stepping in and helping,
them stepping in helps you get your--because you got your files
back finally, didn't you?
Ms. Herridge. I did get the files back. If I didn't have
the support of SAG-AFTRA really publicly standing up for
journalism, I don't believe that I would have received the
files, and they would have been returned.
I just want to be clear, Congressman, wherever you work, if
this happened to you, it's an attack on the free press. It's an
attack on the First Amendment. It makes it more challenging for
reporters to work in the future. That disrupts the free flow of
information to the public.
Chair Jordan. Of course, it does.
Ms. Herridge. They call journalism a profession for a
reason, because it's about an informed electorate, and it's a
cornerstone of our democracy.
I can only speak for myself. When my records were seized, I
felt it was a journalistic rape.
Chair Jordan. Ms. Cavallaro, have you ever seen that
before, where when someone is leaving employment at a major
news organization, they seize their documents?
Ms. Cavallaro. I can't say that SAG-AFTRA is familiar with
every single case of termination or departure where--
Chair Jordan. I'm not asking that. I'm saying have you ever
seen anything like this?
Ms. Cavallaro. I have no recollection of seeing--
Chair Jordan. Well, that should scare us too. The first
time it ever happened, and it happens to an award-winning
journalist who's been in this profession for a number of years,
known all across the profession, and that happens on the heels
of what happened to Ms. Attkisson because both journalists were
critical of the government.
That's exactly what journalism is about, being critical of
the government when the government is doing things wrong, and
then to have a major news organization or the government itself
do this.
In your testimony, Ms. Herridge, you had a very important
line. You said: ``If confidential sources are not protected,
journalism is dead.'' I agree. It would seem to me if
retaliation is allowed by the government or by some major media
outlet, journalism is dead as well. That's what this hearing is
about.
I, again, want to thank you all for coming and sharing your
important testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
I'd like to recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Scanlon. I just have a unanimous consent request to
enter into the record Paramount's response to Chair Jordan's
February 23rd letter regarding Ms. Herridge's termination. It
corrects the record of some of the wild speculation and
mischaracterization we've heard from the other side, as it
describes that Ms. Herridge was not the only person who was let
go at that time and that certain procedures were followed.
Chair Jordan. Would the Chair yield just for a second?
Mr. Roy. The gentleman from Ohio.
Chair Jordan. I didn't--all I said is it happened. What
happened afterwards is what's scary, when they seized her
files. That is scary because that is the point I tried to make.
Ms. Scanlon. I seek unanimous consent to introduce the
letter.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. Suspend for one second.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the Ranking Member for
questions.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I want to thank all our witnesses
here today.
I appreciate Ms. Herridge's repeated acknowledgment that
her employment dispute is separate from the civil lawsuit in
which she was held in contempt for refusing to disclose a
confidential source, despite the apparent confusion of some of
my colleagues where they conflated those two matters.
It's clear, I think, that the contempt was the result of a
private individual's lawsuit seeking that information. It
wasn't a government action seeking that information until it
got to the point where the courts were enforcing a contempt
citation.
Which brings us back to my remarks at the outset, which is
that with the Federal law in a State of muddiness, confusion,
disarray since the Branzburg v. Hayes decision over 50 years
ago, it really is incumbent on Congress to take action to make
sure that the courts are not put in a position where they are
exerting fines or possible jail time against journalists
because they don't think they have the authority not to.
So, in Branzburg the Court explicitly invited Congress to,
quote, ``determine whether a statutory newsman's''--I would say
and woman's--``privilege is necessary and desirable and to
fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed
necessary.''
So, Ms. Farid Johnson, if you could just take us through
why should Congress step in and actually take up this
invitation, particularly in the context of the recent threats
to the First Amendment and freedom of the press in our modern
world?
Ms. Farid Johnson. Congress should absolutely take this up
because it is, in fact, confusing, and it leaves journalists in
a lurch where they are going to be subject to or have been
subject to different interpretations of this seminal case that,
as you note, is over 50 years old.
With the PRESS Act and with the definitions it provides and
with the comprehension with which it addresses this issue, it
is really an opportunity for Congress to clarify and to offer
that certainty to journalists--and to offer certainty to
sources, who, as we've heard from our colleagues on the stand
here today, are going to be less and less likely to come
forward.
That ultimately harms Americans because when Americans do
not have access to information, they cannot understand what
their government is doing. So, it really a comprehensive
approach that needs to happen as quickly as possible.
Ms. Scanlon. I appreciate that.
I think it also harms our court system when we're putting
our courts in a position where they are doing something that is
then undermining the First Amendment and free press rights.
We've noted that dozens of our States--I've seen 49 States,
I've seen 32 States--so the majority of States and Washington,
DC, have now enacted shield laws, but they are not uniform. Of
course, we have the Federal Circuit Courts which have a variety
of interpretations of what's required or not required.
How does that impact journalism in this modern age where so
much of it is digital and online platforms, and we're not
talking about the mom-and-pop paper down the street anymore,
but we're talking about wider distribution sources? How does
the lack of a more uniform shield law impact journalism?
Ms. Farid Johnson. It impacts it in a few ways, and I won't
say that--the 49 States plus Washington, DC, have either a
shield law or a court recognition of a reporter's privilege.
So, there's the distinction there.
Ms. Scanlon. OK.
Ms. Farid Johnson. Actually, I think it's important to
bring this down to an example, because the DOJ recently put
into place media guidelines that talk about what a member of
the news media can or cannot be subject to in terms of the
limitations as to what the government can do to compel sources.
However, the Justice Department's internal criteria give the
agency substantial latitude when it comes to defining what a
member of the news media is.
As I noted in my testimony, in this digital age we have a
number of individuals who are engaging in legitimate
journalistic acts who might not fit a traditional mold in terms
of being, for example, a Wall Street Journal reporter.
It is important that we recognize that because we are now
in an age of new technologies and new opportunities and
innovations in journalism, that having the PRESS Act with this
broad definition to protect journalists of all different types
of stripes will be important to ensuring that assurance for
journalists across the board.
Ms. Scanlon. Well, again, I want to thank all our witnesses
for helping us reemphasize the importance of the PRESS Act and
hopefully persuading our Senatorial colleagues to get with it
and help us get this done.
So, thank you again. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I want to thank her
and my Democrat colleagues for working with us to try to move
this along. I believe we're going to be able to finish the
hearing without breaking. The Prime Minister has not yet
started speaking.
So, we're going to proceed, and then we, hopefully, won't
have to break and come back for everybody's benefit.
So, Ms. Herridge, could you just quickly, for the benefit
of the Committee, articulate the awards and honors you've
received in carrying out your profession?
Ms. Herridge. Wow, that's a little embarrassing, but--
Mr. Roy. Well, it's important.
Ms. Herridge. I've always tried to stay in the background.
I'm so proud of the work that we did at CBS News. I was
part of an Emmy-winning team. I was also nominated for
investigative Emmys, primarily for the work that we did
revealing the toxic exposure of our veterans, specifically a
group who were based in Uzbekistan, in K2. This was the
launching-off pad for classified operations into Afghanistan.
We also did reporting that was a catalyst for legislation,
the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which has opened new
opportunities and benefits and payments for a million veterans
and civilians.
This was real impact reporting, and it was accountability
reporting on both the left and the right.
Mr. Roy. You mentioned Emmys, other awards. In other words,
is there any indication of negative conduct in carrying out
your profession, right? I mean, you've been getting awards.
Nothing would indicate that there was a failure to perform your
duties, failure to do your job competently, correct?
Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I think what you're asking me is
whether I was terminated for poor performance. I don't believe
that my record would reflect that.
I don't know what factors the CBS News executives
considered when they terminated my position. There was tension
over the Hunter Biden reporting and the Biden Administration,
but I can't say for sure why I was let go.
Mr. Roy. You mentioned that tension. You had been one of
the reporters certainly in what we might define as the
mainstream media that was focusing intently on the Hunter Biden
laptop, on the various facts surrounding the Biden family and
the flow of money and all the things involved with that. Is
that correct?
Ms. Herridge. That is correct.
For the full picture, though, I was also the reporter at
CBS News who obtained the audiotape of former President Trump
apparently bragging about the Iran classified documents at Mar-
a-Lago. I also exposed how 50 soldiers were denied the Purple
Heart under the Trump Administration in an effort to deescalate
after a ballistic missile attack in Iran.
I'm someone who calls balls and strikes, Congressman. I
just follow the facts where they lead. That has always been my
calling card.
Mr. Roy. When CBS let you go, was it around the time of you
calling out the Trump Administration or around the time that
you were pursuing more of the Hunter Biden--
Ms. Herridge. I was let go a few days after the Special
Counsel Robert Hur report into President Biden's handling of
classified information.
Mr. Roy. At the same time all that's going on, you're
managing the issue with FOX and the reality that you are being
held in contempt. You've touched on it, and I don't want to
repeat it too much, but it's really important for the record.
You're, in fact, being held in contempt by a court to the
tune of $800 a day--which, as you've noted, has thankfully been
stayed pending appeal. That is correct?
Ms. Herridge. That is correct.
I'd also like to emphasize, Congressman, that I have total
respect for the legal process. My case is in front of the
Appellate Court, and so I'm limited in what I can say.
I reject characterizations that the court is being heavy-
handed. It's well within their discretion to levy these fines.
I was making the point that for many journalists facing fines
of that significance would be insurmountable, and they'd have
to make a hard choice about whether to protect their sources.
Mr. Roy. In closing, could you just reiterate the extent of
your belief in what this means for other journalists? You
alluded to before smaller journalists without the protection of
the bubble of the kind of corporate structure that you've got
with FOX News backing you up from your previous reporting.
Ms. Herridge. I just don't think many journalists could
withstand the threat of significant and crippling financial
sanctions. They may not have a former employer or a current
employer who's in a position to mount a vigorous and costly
defense. I think it's a very dangerous period for journalism.
The PRESS Act would close the legal gap in the system, this
ambiguity that I've had to deal with for two years.
I want to emphasize, this is not about a single journalist.
It's not about a single story. It's not about a single network.
What happens in my case, the passage of the PRESS Act is
going to impact every journalist working in this room, and it's
going to impact every journalist in the United States and for
the next generation to come.
If there's anything I can accomplish in my career as a
journalist, it's going to be getting this over the finish line.
I feel this with every core of my being.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Herridge.
I do want to acknowledge that the gentleman from North
Carolina has been waiting here patiently throughout the
hearing. He indicated he didn't necessarily have a lot of
questions, but I do want to give him a moment here to close
before we adjourn.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I will take
advantage of the opportunity.
I think you guys have aired the PRESS Act--which, of
course, has already passed here--very well, its purpose in
creating a limited privilege on the part of journalists.
I appreciate the fact--I've certainly heard, Ms. Attkisson,
and Ms. Herridge, from you, I understand, and I appreciate your
ethic in terms of maintaining your position of calling balls
and strikes, your desire and your professional commitment to
maintaining a neutrality, so that you're on guard even to
coming here and letting Republicans take shots at CBS News
through you, Ms. Herridge, for example. I get that.
There is another thing here, and I think about the presence
of Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, a lot of the
independence of journalists.
Ms. Herridge, nevertheless, my observation--and I'm a
Republican, so it's partisan, I guess, in part--but I think if
you look at the stats--I would suggest the American people see
it this way--CBS News is among the corporate behemoth media
outlets, all which seem to be captured by one side of the
American political spectrum.
You've worked for one of those. Maybe FOX News is one on
the other side. CBS, NBC, Wall Street Journal--excuse me--well,
largely, yes--The Washington Post and The New York Times, all
of big media seems to be captured by one side. You've worked
for a sustained period of time for one of those networks.
What about that? Is that not true? It's not so much about
your firing, your termination, whether it's because of the
Hunter Biden story, or whatever, but isn't that a problem?
How does a journalist who's independent and wants to call
balls and strikes function in an environment where all the big
media behemoths are captured by one side of the political
spectrum?
Ms. Herridge. Congressman, I've always tried to be
respectful of my former employers. So, I worked at ABC News, I
worked at FOX News, and I worked at CBS News, and I brought the
same approach at every place that I worked, which is that it's
about accountability journalism, on the left and on the right,
and representing diverse points of view.
This is so important in a marketplace of ideas. It's so
important in a civil debate to settle issues in this country. I
feel that the PRESS Act, in guaranteeing these protections to
sources, helps grow the voices in journalism. That's the bottom
line for me.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I get that. I understand that you may want
to limit the avenues you--or the areas you want to take on so
that you can emphasize those things that might cover new
ground, and the PRESS Act is where you decided to focus. I'll
give you one more opportunity.
To the extent you're one of the admirable professional
journalists who calls balls and strikes, when you're on the air
at CBS News, you're lending your ethic and your image to an
organization that's decided to do something decidedly
different. Is that not true?
Ms. Herridge. Sir, I came to CBS News to do investigative
reporting and to bring in diverse voices, and I did my best to
do that.
I can't explain all the decisions of the executives. In
some cases, I felt that they limited points of view and voices.
I was uncomfortable with that because I think good journalism
is about diverse voices.
Mr. Bishop. I think professional, ethical journalists--Ms.
Attkisson, I haven't wanted to leave you out, but it's hard to
pick one example and kind of go there.
I have great respect for the struggles that your profession
has, and I don't know how all of them get solved. I do believe
we make progress in bits and pieces.
I do think that it is a great tragedy that big media have
all--they can trot out a Catherine Herridge. Everyone, probably
recognizes--who's fair-minded--where the overall trend has gone
and that it leaves professional journalists in a hopelessly
conflicted situation if you have a network that has decided to
go one way entirely and merely has a tokenism as to what
professional journalism ought to be.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
This concludes today's hearing.
We thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee
today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=117096.
[all]