Confirming Pages
CHAPTER
2: Information Ethics: A Profession Seeks the Truth
47
CASE 2-D
The Spouse Is Squeezed: A South Carolina TV Reporter’s Attempt
to Conceal Her Source
SONYA FORTE DUHÉ
Loyola University, New Orleans
It seems like a typical news day.
A man telephones WIS-TV Senior Reporter Heather Hoopes, claiming to possess a “bombshell videotape” that she must see.
The source tells the Columbia, South Carolina, NBC affiliate reporter the tape
is available to her only if she comes to his house to get it. He says he won’t mail it
or drop it off at the station. If she wants it, she has to come and get it.
Concerned for her safety, Hoopes asks her husband, Jim Matthews—who for
more than 20 years has worked with the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and now heads the local Columbia office—to drive her to
the caller’s home. He agrees.
Matthews has no idea that the videotape contains a privileged conversation
between a murder defendant and his lawyer, secretly videotaped by a local sheriff’s
deputy. Hoopes isn’t exactly sure what she is getting either.
After reviewing the tape, she broadcasts a story about the videotaping of the
privileged conversation. To Hoopes and colleagues, the tape is a clear violation
of the prisoner’s rights. Hoopes’s move to have Matthews drive her to retrieve
the videotape from this confidential source leads to numerous court battles and
thousands of dollars in legal costs for her, her husband and her employer.
CONTEXT
In 1995, Lexington County sheriff’s detectives arrested B. J. Quattlebaum and
charged him with the murder of William Swartz. Quattlebaum was taken to the
Lexington County Jail, where he called his attorney.
The men used a small room to talk. Unknown to them, a deputy sheriff was
secretly and illegally videotaping their meeting.
At a later time, the same confidential source, who was subsequently identified
as Columbia attorney Jack Duncan, called Hoopes at WIS to alert her to this alleged
wrongdoing. Hoopes, her news director and her editors decided to use a portion
of the videotape to expose the illegal action. However, in an attempt to protect the
arrested man’s rights, the news team didn’t use the audio portion of the tape.
The FBI attempted to obtain the name of Hoopes’ confidential source but
could not meet Justice Department protocol because of First Amendment questions.
When the FBI’s efforts to subpoena WIS ran into roadblocks, it attempted to make
Matthews reveal the person’s identity.
In a May 10, 1999, story in the Washington Post, Hoopes was quoted as saying, “I consider it a backdoor tactic. I don’t understand why the Justice Department
pat11943_ch02_021-054.indd 47
5/11/10 2:56 PM
Confirming Pages
48
CHAPTER
2: Information Ethics: A Profession Seeks the Truth
is doing this. It’s very stressful for me and my husband. I carry an extra burden
because I put him in the situation.”
Prosecutors subpoenaed Matthews, and a federal grand jury demanded that the
DEA agent testify about the case.
Matthews’s lawyer, along with the WIS legal team, filed motions with U.S.
District Court asking that Matthews not be forced to testify. Lawyers argued that
forcing him to be a witness would violate his First Amendment rights. These
motions were dismissed. Written pleas to Attorney General Janet Reno, FBI Director Louis Freeh and Justice Department official Beneva Weintraub also did not
recuse Matthews from a court appearance.
The Radio Television News Director Association (RTNDA) is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to electronic journalism. The
organization represents local and network news executives in broadcasting, cable
and other electronic media in more than 30 countries. In those letters, RTNDA
President Barbara Cochran called on the Justice Department to end FBI attempts to
force Matthews to testify. Cochran wrote:
On behalf of the 3,400 members of the RTNDA, I am writing to express our
grave concern about FBI attempts to force the husband of a South Carolina
television station reporter to reveal to a grand jury what he knows about his wife’s
confidential source.
Efforts to force Mr. Matthews to betray the confidence of his spouse not only
raise compelling questions about marital privilege, but they represent a blatant
attempt to circumvent the reporter’s privilege recognized by the Constitution, the
state, and the Justice Department.
It is well recognized that news-gathering activities are protected under the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This protection extends
to information given in confidence to a reporter, including the source of that
information. The South Carolina legislature has also expressed a strong public
policy of protecting news-gathering activities, enacting a shield law whose aim
is to protect the free flow of information to the public. Moreover, Department of
Justice regulations expressly recognize that: Because freedom of the press can be
no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the
prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it
impairs a reporter’s responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial
public issues.
RTNDA is certainly aware of no case where a reporter’s spouse has been
ordered to disclose a confidential source. If prosecutors are allowed to obtain
confidential news information from a third party where efforts to obtain the same
information from the reporter have failed, then the protections afforded by the First
Amendment and state press shield statutes would be meaningless.
Hoopes said, “I would have thought they [authorities] would have applauded
the efforts of my source and WIS to bring this to light. Instead it seems like we’re
the criminals.”
Quattlebaum was later convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
In January 2000, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned Quattlebaum’s
conviction, due in part to the videotape incident.
pat11943_ch02_021-054.indd 48
5/11/10 2:56 PM
Confirming Pages
CHAPTER
2: Information Ethics: A Profession Seeks the Truth
49
A federal judge ordered the deputy who videotaped the conversation to pay a
$250 fine for civil rights violations. As for Hoopes’s confidential source, he was
sentenced to and spent several months in jail for lying to a federal grand jury and
was disbarred.
Micro Issues
1. Should the reporter have taken the videotape? Why?
2. Should the reporter have asked someone to accompany her to pick up the videotape? If
so, who?
3. Was it okay for the reporter to air the videotape?
4. Should the reporter have aired the audio from the videotape?
Midrange Issues
1. Does the reporter have the right to air videotape of an illegal act? When would it be
inappropriate?
2. Was it the journalist’s responsibility to expose this illegal taping of a privileged conversation?
3. Did the journalist breach her source’s confidentiality by allowing her husband to accompany her to pick up the videotape?
Macro Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
Should reporters be allowed to keep sources confidential if a criminal act has occurred?
What responsibilities do reporters have to law enforcement officials? Why?
Should spouses of reporters have the same First Amendment rights that reporters possess?
What role should nonjournalists play in the newsgathering process?
pat11943_ch02_021-054.indd 49
5/11/10 2:56 PM