Time Magazine to Cooperate in Plame Case Probe

New York Times Publisher Is 'Deeply Disappointed' by Decision

Time Inc. announced today it will comply with a court order to hand over the notes of correspondent Matthew Cooper to a prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA operative's identity, and so avoid jail time for the magazine reporter.

In a statement issued by Time magazine's editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc. said the delivery of the confidential source documents "certainly removes any justification for incarceration."

The announcement came three days after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times and one day after a federal court judge repeated a threat to jail the two journalists for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources. The reporters told the judge yesterday they were prepared to spend four months in jail rather than answer questions about their confidential government sources.

In an interview with CNN, Pearlstine said he believes the documents will "obviate the need" for any testimony from Cooper. That seemed to imply that Cooper's notes will either include the name of his source or somehow point obviously to the source's identity.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, issued a statement saying the newspaper was "deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records." He noted that one of its reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.

"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time," Sulzberger said.

Although Time said it would comply, the statement by the magazine and comments by the magazine's editor-in-chief following the announcement left no doubt the magazine strongly disagreed with the courts' orders.

Pearlstine told the Washington Post that the magazine felt it had no choice but to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. "As much as I'm a staunch defender of editorial independence, I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution that says journalists are above the law," he said. "The alternative to complying would be a kind of anarchy."

Pearlstine said, "those of us in the news business are constantly pointing fingers at others who act like they're above the law. We can't now assert that we are."

The Time statement said: "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.

"Although we shall comply with the order to turn over the subpoenaed records, we shall continue to support the protection of confidential sources," the statement continued. "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."

At a packed court hearing yesterday, Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan chided Cooper and Miller for seeking more time to convince him they should not be jailed. He said then that he was considering ordering them jailed as soon as next Wednesday.