Time to comply with court order

Breaking news.

NEW YORK -- Time Inc. said Thursday it would comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan is threatening to jail Matthew Cooper, Time's White House correspondent, and Judith Miller of The New York Times for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.

In a statement, Time said it believes "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." '

But it also said that despite its concerns, it will turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.

"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 statement said.

And if you needed any proof that Washington journalists/columnists are some kind of fraternal order that transcends politics, look no further.

In an interview yesterday, Al Hunt, a former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and a colleague of Mr. Novak's on the recently canceled CNN program "Capital Gang," said he supported Mr. Novak's decision not to discuss his sources publicly.

But Mr. Hunt said Mr. Novak, while protecting his sources, could probably shed some light on why Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper were facing jail on contempt charges, while he, apparently, was not.

"It does beg the question why Matt and Judy, and not Bob," Mr. Hunt, an editor for Bloomberg News, said. "It's just so confusing to citizens and people in our business. If Bob could provide some context, I think it would be helpful."

I have no sympathy for any of them. A White House "source" tried to use "Matt" and "Judy" ("Judy", for once, did not allow herself to be so used) to discredit someone unfriendly to the White House. They're not protecting a whistle-blower, they protecting a thug. Give it up, already.

But the question that is really begging, to go with Hunt's misuse of the phrase, why aren't reporters pressing Fitzgerald on what he's really investigating at this point?