Two Possibilities In The Catherine Herridge Case

Observers of the American media were stunned when CBS senior investigative correspondent—and career intelligence reporter—Catherine Herridge was “laid off” by the network on February 13, 2024. It is widely believed that, while Herridge was among a larger group of employees were were laid off, she was, in fact, fired. Herridge had an enviable record of breaking big stories and was widely respected for her professionalism and work, so the firing came as a shock. Why would CBS fire such a valuable employee?

Jonathan Turley, law professor at Geo. Washington U., has weighed in regarding Herridge’s case at The Hill—perhaps a prelude to legal action by Herridge. What we learn is that CBS—contrary to standard practice—seized Herridge’s “files, computers and records, including information on privileged [i.e., confidential] sources”:

CBS faces uproar after seizing investigative journalist’s files

To cut through the legal qualifications, this is what has happened.

Turley spoke to a variety of persons both in the journalistic profession and knowledgeable about standard practices. No one he spoke to was aware of anything like this having happened before. Such files are regarded as the personal property of the journalist. More to the point, perhaps, confidentiality agreements with sources are regarded as being between the journalist and the source—not the journalist’s employer. In the circumstances, Herridge’s records probably included not only her work product at CBS, but also her work product from her years at Fox, as well. Turley’s contacts all expressed concern for the confidentiality of Herridge’s sources.

Turley goes into substantial detail regarding the legal issues surrounding confidentiality of journalistic sources. In fact, Herridge herself is currently embroiled in a court case in which she risks being jailed for contempt for refusing to turn over the identity of a sources:

The order from Judge Christopher Cooper came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Chinese American scientist Yanping Chen against the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Citing documents reviewed by Fox News, Herridge reported that Chen was the subject of a federal probe. Chen has alleged that federal authorities improperly leaked information about her, violating the Privacy Act.

Here is the real core of Turley’s article—and remember that Turley, a law professor, is also a journalist:

The timing of Herridge’s termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews.

Given the other layoffs and declining revenues, the inclusion of Herridge was defended by the network as a painful but necessary measure. But then something strange happened. The network grabbed Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what, if anything, would be turned over to her. The files likely contain confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS. Those records, it suggests, are presumptively the property of CBS News.

For many of us who have worked in the media for decades, this action is nothing short of shocking. Journalists are generally allowed to leave with their files. Under the standard contract, including the one at CBS, journalists agree that they will make files available to the network if needed in future litigation. That presupposes that they will retain control of their files. Such files are crucial for reporters, who use past contacts and work in pursuing new stories with other outlets or who cap their careers with personal memoirs.

CBS says they’re going to conduct an inventory of Herridge’s records. They’re not saying who the persons conducting the inventory will be. In the meantime, who will risk talking to a journalist who just might have a target on her back.

I see two possibilities here.

The first is that CBS buckled to political pressure and fired Herridge—using the rather transparent cover of layoffs to include her among those let go. But, why seize her records? Well …

The second possibility is that powerful people want to know who Herridge’s sources are. That could simply be political operatives, but my guess is that such people could end up finding themselves in serious legal trouble. On the other hand, agencies of the Intel Community might also be interested in identifying her sources. One thinks of Herridge’s work on the Hunter laptop story. Might the FBI, for example, wish to know where she got her information?

I don’t know the answer to that specific question. Herridge has had a long run covering the Intel Community. The circumstances surrounding her firing suggest that CBS was placed under one helluva lot of pressure—there’s no other way to understand their willingness to jeopardize their ability to hire reputable journalists. That suggests either that some very powerful and influential people wanted Herridge’s career ended—as a lesson, perhaps, to other journalists covering intel matters—or … Maybe those same powerful and influential people had a very strong desire to learn who her sources have been over the years.

CBS will conduct its inventory, probably has already done something of the sort. Who will know who learned the details? If CBS lies about who they shared the information with, who will be the wiser? Not Catherine Herridge. Well, sadder and wiser, maybe. Her sources may well be sharing that boat with her, but they’ll likely never be able to follow the trail to those who pulled this off.

Meanwhile, what does this say about who runs this country, and about our supposed rule of law?