MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
David McCraw was also in the courtroom yesterday. He is senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times. Mr. McCraw, thanks so much for joining us this morning.
DAVID MCCRAW: Thank you so much for having me.
MARTIN: The judge was unsparing in his criticism of the government's filing. He pointed out errors, to which the government admitted. He threatened sanctions. What does it say to you that the judge so sharply criticized the Justice Department's lawyers?
MCCRAW: I think the judge found exactly what others who looked at it found and certainly as we saw it, which is there is a process in place that the Justice Department is supposed to follow. And the key to that is that in an investigation, it turns to journalists last. That's the way press freedom gets protected in this country. And it was clear that a lot of steps have been skipped.
MARTIN: So after withdrawing its subpoenas, the Justice Department put out a statement that criticized the judge for, quote, "blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation," unquote. How does the Times respond to that national security argument?
MCCRAW: We have maintained throughout this two things - one is the stories we're reporting are important. The public needs to know not just what the government wants to tell the public, but what happens behind the scenes, and we are going to continue doing that. The second part is that the government has a way to do this. There is a process. It's spelled out in the law and it's spelled out in the rules that the DOJ has for itself. Asking the government to follow the rules, asking the government to follow the law, is not interfering. It is upholding the rule of law.
MARTIN: I want to go back to something that you just mentioned. The judge said that subpoenas for journalists should be seen as a last resort. The Justice Department says the investigation is ongoing. Is it possible the administration could still attempt to compel Times' reporters to divulge their sources in the future?
MCCRAW: They certainly could try. If they follow the steps, they may come back. But what I've found over more than 20 years at the Times, that that is extremely rare.
MARTIN: Well, you know, it's rare, but New York Times reporters have faced subpoenas before. I mean, during the Bush administration, Judith Miller was detained for more than 80 days when she refused to testify about a source. You know, the Pulitzer Prize winner James Risen for years fought a subpoena demanding that he disclose sources to the Obama administration. Do you find something different about this current conflict that the Times had with the Justice Department?
MCCRAW: The thing I'd point out, Michel, is how quickly they moved, how little attempt they made to follow the guidelines, which are designed to make a subpoena to a reporter a last resort.
MARTIN: By they, you mean the Justice...
MCCRAW: Both of the...
MARTIN: By they, you mean the Justice Department.
MCCRAW: Made by the Justice Department.
MARTIN: OK.
MCCRAW: Yeah. Exactly right. And the cases you cite, in each of those cases, it was a long process. The government attempted to follow the rules. The law is not strong enough. Let me be honest about this. We need to have stronger laws protecting reporters' right to keep sources confidential. It's an important, important tool for reporters to have, to be able to rely on sources and tell the public things that the government may not want them to know, things that may make the government uncomfortable.
MARTIN: Do you mind if I ask you this? The Times revealed this week - I'm imagining that this is still traumatic. I don't know if that's the right word here. It's upsetting. I think nobody - I mean, the Times has a very strong record of, you know, fighting what it considers to be, you know, unwarranted government intrusion into news gathering. I don't think anybody likes being sued. I don't think anybody likes being subpoenaed. I don't think anybody likes being brought before the government to try to force them to do their job in a way that they don't want to do. I'm just - do you mind just sharing - if you wouldn't mind, like, what's the impact on something like this?
MCCRAW: I think it creates a certain amount of resolve, but I agree with you that it's concerning. As happy as we were yesterday about the decision, we also realized it should never have come to that. We shouldn't have had to be there. And I think that the Times feels that it not only needs to protect its own reporters and not only needs to uphold the law in this important area, but also to be there because we know that other news organizations may not have the resources, may not have the inclination but need the protection.
And if we can lead the way on that, we're going to. I think the thing that has really impressed me is that our reporters and our editors have made very clear they are not stopping reporting on the administration, and they're not stopping reporting on whatever problems the plane has.
MARTIN: That is David McCraw, the lead newsroom lawyer for The New York Times. Mr. McCraw, thank you so much for joining us.
MARTIN: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
