Back on the beat (continued)

Q: You acknowledged having provided ‘ " clues " that might have offered a path to your confidential source in the months before Joseph Bevilacqua was identified, in November 2004. By doing this, did you contradict the stance you presented, of consistently guarding the confidentiality of your source?

A: No, I don’t think so. The way that came about, I explained most of it in the courtroom that day. The information came to me at a time when I was having conversations with Bevilacqua about this case. The information [Taricani testified in court that he believed Bevilacqua had talked publicly of being his confidential source] was credible. I still believe to this day it was credible, and I was troubled by what to do about it.

I first talked to my lawyers about it, and then I talked to two journalists in this area that I really have a lot of respect for — they’re dear friends of mine, I’m not going to say who they are. And I asked them what they would do in the same situation, and they both said that they would give the information to the special prosecutor, because he [Bevilacqua] was violating the agreement. And I believe to this day, though he denied it, that he did violate the agreement. I can’t tell you what [special prosecutor] Marc DeSisto did to investigate that; I just don’t know. But it was not a quick decision. I thought about it for a couple of weeks.

My attorneys were also concerned, not that I had this information. We wanted to show the special prosecutor that we were trying to not give up my source, but to show some degree of cooperation. And any reporter that gets in this situation, your lawyers advise you to show some cooperation, even in your depositions, so when it comes sentence time, it’s a mitigating factor. And so after I had talked to my two friends and described what had transpired, they said if they were in that position they would have done the same thing, and that helped my decision. I really have a lot of respect for these two people, and I talked to my wife about it, I talked to my lawyers about it, and I finally decided to do it. I was really angry. At that point, I knew I was risking prison, and this guy’s telling people at a party, in a bravado way, that he’s my source. And I was angry. I was disappointed, and I think he violated it.

Q: What do you expect to be the legacy of this case in Rhode Island?

A: Hmmm. Well, I just hope it shows that despite the murky ending to this, I just hope it shows that reporters who take their job seriously do so for good reasons. I believe to this day that we were right in airing this tape. I never presented it as my investigation or a Channel 10 investigation. I simply said it was a leaked tape. But I really did think, my news director thought, my lawyers in New York thought that this was such a vivid example of public corruption, that the public should see it.

In light of the court’s order, as you know, these tapes were never going to be made public, even after they were introduced as evidence, even though ultimately they were on appeal. When I had the tape — that was the situation. I received overwhelming support for what I did; I mean, there’s been some negative [reaction], but that’s understandable. But the overwhelming majority of people who have written me, called me, sent me e-mails, called the station, really got it. They understood it. They understood that journalists need to protect the source.

So, if there’s a legacy, it’s not going to be my legacy. I just hope it works for other journalists, and they’re encouraged to go and do their job, and if they need to offer a source confidentiality, they’ll do so, knowing that the public’s behind them. And I think the public was behind us.

Q: You’ve mentioned the other cases in which reporters have been under the gun in situations involving source confidentiality. How’s the outlook for steps that might improve the situation?

A: There are some. I’ve been invited, as a result of this case and the publicity I received over it, to speak at a lot of forums with Matt Cooper, and one recently with Judith Miller, on the need for a federal shield law. Senator Christopher Dodd, as a result of my case, introduced a bill — and there’s been a companion bill in the House introduced — that’s actually picking up bipartisan support; even some conservative Republicans are on board with it. And it’s encouraging. And it’s not the best bill in the world, but it’s certainly a bill that would help a lot of journalists in the future, should it pass.

And it’s really a bill that mirrored the Justice Department’s standards for questioning journalists in criminal investigations. It doesn’t offer blanket protection, but it offers some protection, much more than we have now, because we have none. So if I can do anything out of this, it’s to go talk about that wherever I get a chance to talk about it, and hopefully, something happens. Because it’s something I really do believe needs to happen, so that journalists don’t get put in this untenable situation of risking prison to protect a source to do their job.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.