Statement of Time Inc.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:00 ET from Time Inc.

    NEW YORK, June 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Time Inc. said it would comply with a
 court order requiring it to deliver the subpoenaed records to a grand jury in
 connection with the Special Counsel's investigation into the Valerie Plame
 matter. The decision follows the Supreme Court's refusal to review a federal
 court order requiring production of the documents in a case involving Time
 magazine's White House correspondent, Matt Cooper (Matthew Cooper and Time
 Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1508.) Norman Pearlstine, Editor in Chief,
 issued the following statement:
     "The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, including the right
 to gather information of interest to the public and, where necessary, to
 protect the confidentiality of sources.
     Time Inc. believes in that guarantee. That is why we have supported from
 the outset the efforts of Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in resisting the
 Special Counsel's attempts to obtain information regarding Mr. Cooper's
 confidential sources. Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper have fought this case all the
 way from the district court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
     In this particular case, where national security and the role of a grand
 jury have been at issue, the Supreme Court chose to let stand the district
 court's order requiring Time Inc. and Mr. Cooper to comply with the Special
 Counsel's subpoenas. It did so after the United States Court of Appeals for
 the District of Columbia affirmed that order.
     In declining to review the important issues presented by this case, we
 believe that the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will
 have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of
 information that is so necessary in a democratic society. It may also
 encourage excesses by overzealous prosecutors.
     It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has left uncertain what
 protections the First Amendment and the federal common law provide journalists
 and their confidential sources.
     It is also worth noting that many foreign governments, including China,
 Venezuela, and Cameroon, to name a few, refer to U.S. contempt rulings when
 seeking to justify their own restrictive press laws.
     Despite these concerns, Time Inc. shall deliver the subpoenaed records to
 the Special Counsel in accordance with its duties under the law. The same
 Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to
 final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments.
 That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity. The
 innumerable Supreme Court decisions in which even Presidents have followed
 orders with which they strongly disagreed evidences that our nation lives by
 the rule of law and that none of us is above it.
     We believe that our decision to provide the Special Prosecutor with the
 subpoenaed records obviates the need for Matt Cooper to testify and certainly
 removes any justification for incarceration.
     Time Inc.'s decision doesn't represent a change in our philosophy, nor
 does it reflect a departure from our belief in the need for confidential
 sources. It does reflect a response to a profound departure from the practice
 of federal prosecutors when this case is compared with other landmark cases
 involving confidentiality over the past 30 years. Since the days of Attorney
 General John Mitchell, the Justice Department has sought confidential sources
 from reporters as a last resort, not as an easy option. Neither Archibald Cox,
 the Watergate Special Prosecutor, nor Judge John Sirica sought to force the
 Washington Post or its reporters to reveal the identity of "Deep Throat," the
 prized confidential source.
     Although we shall comply with the order to turn over the subpoenaed
 records, we shall continue to support the protection of confidential sources.
 We do so with the knowledge that forty-nine states and the District of
 Columbia now recognize some form of protection for confidential sources, and
 that legislation is now pending in Congress to enact a federal shield law for
 confidential sources."
     Time Inc. Contacts:
     Dawn Bridges
     Ali Zelenko

SOURCE Time Inc.