NEWS MEDIA UPDATE   Kansas · March 9, 2010 · Reporter's privilege

Subpoenaed Kansas reporter loses job

A Kansas reporter who previously fought to keep a confidential source from local prosecutors has now lost her job.

Reporter Claire O’Brien was terminated last week from her position at the Dodge City Daily Globe after a subpoena battle last month that ended when a criminal defendant accepted a plea deal. County prosecutors had been seeking testimony about O’Brien’s interview with the defendant and the identity of a source she quoted in her story about the case.

The company that owns the Globe, GateHouse Media, and O’Brien appealed the subpoena up to the Kansas Supreme Court and lost. After O’Brien was held in contempt for failing to appear in court, which she said today was “a stupid mistake,” the confidential source revealed his identity to the prosecutors, which allowed her to not testify about him in a private court proceeding known as an inquisition.

O'Brien testified with an independent attorney about her interview with the defendant and said she basically corroborated the information that had already been published.

According to O’Brien, the publishing corporation’s attorneys were only willing to facilitate the disclosure of her information.

“The only reason I’m in this situation is because I didn’t cooperate and give up the source,” O’Brien said today in an interview. 

Stephen Wade, group publisher for GateHouse Media Kansas, said the company couldn't comment on the matter because it is a personnel issue.

O’Brien said that the newspaper placed her on leave until after her scheduled testimony regarding the jailhouse interview on Feb. 12. But after that day, O'Brien says the paper changed the locks to the newsroom -- every reporter was given the key except her -- and she was not allowed in the newsroom alone.

“I was back on staff, but didn't have a key,” she said “They told every single person on staff that if I showed up over the weekend, to call the police.”

O’Brien said that she was finishing up the third installment in a six-part series last Friday, March 5, when she was called into editors' offices and told that "you're not working out; you have thirty minutes to get your stuff together and leave the building." She received no severance package.

Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish called O’Brien’s firing so shortly after the controversy regarding her testimony “unusual, to say the least. And quite disturbing.”

O’Brien said she was disappointed that she would not be able to finish the articles she was writing.

“What really ticks me off is that just Monday, I had said to [my editor] that I was so happy to be back,” she said. “It just really reminded me what I was here for and what I love to do.”

— Cristina Abello, 5:55 pm

Copyright 2010 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Comments: (5)

Comment by Mary, Wed, Mar 10, 3:35pm

Time for Ms. Dalglish to come to take the lead in protecting Claire O'Brien's journalistic reputation.

Comment by Claire O'Brien, Sun, Mar 14, 8:12pm

In between begging the RCFP for its assistance, I have repeatedly asked the organization to stop linking its posts to James Carlson's Topeka Capitol-Journal story, which contains Lucy Dalglish's unsubstantiated, reckless remarks re. myself and GateHouse Media. Mr. Carlson's editor has refused to ask Lucy to supply evidence for those comments, which were based on nothing more than the predictable assurances provided to her by GateHouse corporate lawyers during one phone conversation. Dalglish's remarks continue to significantly damage my professional reputation.
Not only has Ms. Dalglish refused to publically defend me since I was fired without notice, severance pay, or health insurance, but the RCFP inexplicably continues to insist upon keeping those defamatory comments alive by embedding that link in every update.
It's really difficult to ascribe a motive here. I don't get it - but it's beginning to look really fishy.
Let's just say this is not one of American journalism's finer hours.

Comment by Patty Holt, Mon, Mar 15, 8:54pm

Claire... Hmm.. How does it feel to have unsubstantiated things about you in print.. Imagine how Tanner and his family felt about your article stating unsubtantiated things about them... KARMA...

Comment by Anon, Thu, Mar 18, 1:12pm

I was a commenter on other entries about your case here on RCFP and elsewhere. I was very critical of RCFP's damning you while helping you. I was critical of Dalglish's professed ignorance of why you were forced to reject Gatehouse's lawyer.

Their refusal to remove the embed is probably to avoid admitting fault.

In today's story, Dalglish raises questions about Gatehouse's termination. She is not pandering to Gatehouse now. She calls your termination, “unusual, to say the least. And quite disturbing.”

I think your energies should be primarily directed to finding a good employment lawyer who will examine your claims and possibly sue Gatehouse for it. You also should fight to get unemployment.

I will say that I think Lucy is wrong in thinking what has happened is unusual at smaller, non flagship papers. It isn't unusual, sometimes not even at big papers.

This happens a lot. I've seen it happen first hand. When they changed the locks it was obvious they were preparing to fire you.

In your case, maybe a bean counter at Gatehouse didn't want to foot the bill for dealing with a reporter who might go to jail. Maybe the local publisher would have been uncomfortable at his Rotary Club meetings if his paper asserted its independence that absolutely, you know, not like a game anymore, but the real thing. Those Rotary members wouldn't like him anymore. Maybe your publisher just doesn't get what news reporting is really about. God knows, few do anymore.

Stuff like that, it could be dozens of things like that.

You know your paper, if you think about it, maybe you have a hunch.

At any rate. I hope you consult an attorney about your employment matter.

Comment by Anon, Thu, Mar 18, 1:23pm

One additional thought. You know, when the Reporters Committee was formed it was a bunch or reporters getting lawyers to help.

Now, although the journalists who form the steering committee are perfectly free to be a steering committee, rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in these matters, they don't. They are absentee.