Media have been angered and dismayed by Time magazine's decision to hand over a reporter's notes to a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name.

"For 30 years, we've assumed that strong journalistic institutions would stick together and protect their employees," David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author, was quoted as saying by Los Angeles Times. "Now, a new wind is blowing. That united front is gone."

A key reason for the change, he said, was that Time magazine, as an unit of Time Warner Inc., must answer to a board of directors and millions of shareholders.

Yet some speculated that Time Inc.'s editor in chief Pearlstine would be viewed as compromising a fundamental tool of journalism.

"I can't believe there will be too many anonymous whistle-blowers who will want to communicate with Matt Cooper, knowing that he can be turned in by Norm Pearlstine," said Orville Schell, dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "What happened at Time Inc. is clearly troubling for anybody who values the watchdog function of the media."

"If a company refuses to obey a law it believes is wrong, and agrees to penalties, that doesn't mean the company is acting as if it's above the law," said Sandra Mims Rowe, editor of the (Portland) Oregonian. "It means that the company is taking a principled position."

Time Inc.'s editor in chief, Norman Pearlstine, said Thursday the company would turn over all records, notes and e-mail traffic over the company's system concerning the case after losing a US Supreme Court appeal.

An appeals court had ruled Time reporter Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller should be jailed for refusing to testify in the probe of who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 to journalist Robert Novak, who identified her in a syndicated column.

Time Magazine concedes in CIA leak case

Time Inc. has reluctantly decided Thursday to hand over a reporter's notes to a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's name after losing a US Supreme Court appeal.

Time Inc.'s editor in chief, Norman Pearlstine, said the company would turn over all records, notes and e-mail traffic over the company's system concerning the case.

The magazine said its action "removes any justification" for jailing Time reporter Matthew Cooper, who has refused to identify sources for his stories on the leak.

"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," Pearlstine said.

The Supreme Court on June 27 rejected appeals by Time, Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller. A federal judge plans to consider penalties, including possible jail terms, on July 6.

The move, which the New York Times said in a report appeared to be "without precedent in living memory," appeared to be over Cooper's objections.

New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said the newspaper was "deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision" and he would support Miller. She was not available for comment but has repeatedly vowed to go to prison rather than testify.

An appeals court had ruled they should be jailed for refusing to testify in the probe of who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003 to journalist Robert Novak, who identified her in a syndicated column. Plame's husband had criticized the Bush administration during the Iraq war.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

The case represents one of the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Pentagon Papers case more than 30 years ago.

Source: Xinhua/agencies