On 9 December, U.S. District Judge Ernest C. Torres sentenced Jim Taricani, a Rhode Island investigative reporter with WJAR television, to six months’ house arrest. Prior to the sentencing hearing, on 18 November, Judge Torres had found Taricani guilty of criminal contempt.
The case arose from Taricani’s refusal to divulge the name of the source who provided him with a videotape showing evidence of corruption by officials in Providence, Rhode Island. Under the terms of the sentencing order Taricani, who had a heart transplant in 1996, is only allowed to leave his home to see a doctor and visitors are banned outside the hours of 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. He is also denied the right to access the Internet.
Since Taricani’s initial refusal to reveal his source, a lawyer, Joseph A. Bevilacqua, who defended a city official in a corruption trial, has come forward and admitted that he is the reporter’s source. There is some dispute as to whether Bevilacqua asked Taricani for his name to remain confidential.
In reaching his decision, Judge Torres said, “The issues in this case have been obscured and distorted by a number of myths created by spin and media hype.” On the subject of whether a source should be confidential, Judge Torres said journalists should not have an “exclusive, unreviewable authority.”
Speaking of the decision, IPI Director Johann P. Fritz said, “Justice has not been served by Taricani’s house incarceration and the case sends out the wrong signals to both the public and journalists. It says that journalists face imprisonment if they fail to assist the police and it tells individuals, who may have crucial information, that journalists will be unable to protect their confidentiality.”
“I think the case, which is one of many in the United States at present, is a clear attempt to put investigative journalists under pressure and make them think twice about using confidential sources. This view is reinforced by the fact that the prosecution appears intent on seeing Taricani punished even though the original source has come forward of his own volition,” said Fritz.
“The argument that by forcing journalists to reveal their sources, individuals will be deterred from coming forward is also not a myth. It represents a real threat which if it were to become reality would undermine the investigative reporting of journalists and the right of the public to scrutinise the work of their elected officials.”
Fritz finished by saying, “Many individuals who offer journalists information do so at great risk and they have to feel reassured that their identities will be protected.”