New York (AFP)

Should details be published to identify the officer behind the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump? In doing so, the New York Times has sparked controversy and reopened the debate on the protection of whistleblowers, in a political climate deleterious.

After the publication of the report accusing Donald Trump of having solicited "the interference of a foreign country in the election of 2020", the New York daily had given Thursday elements of identification: he specified that it was was acting a CIA agent, a time stationed at the White House, expert on European issues and the political situation in Ukraine.

The lawyers of this whistleblower, like other people working in the information, judged these revelations "dangerous" for their client, both professionally and personally.

Calls to cancel subscriptions to the powerful newspaper, under the hashtag #CancelNYT, have proliferated on social networks, where some were demanding the resignation of its editorial director, Dean Baquet.

- The New York Times defends itself -

The latter defended himself. He explained that Donald Trump and his supporters had attacked the credibility of the whistleblower and that these clarifications should allow readers to "judge for themselves" of his credibility.

But these explanations did not convince everyone.

"It's a tough decision, and the New York Times has been caught between two competing ethical principles," said Jon Marshall, a professor at Northwestern University's School of Journalism.

On the one hand, "seek the truth and publish it", on the other, "limit the harm done, which implies not to endanger the sources," he says. All in a context of competition exacerbated by cycles of information increasingly short, leaving the media "little time" to weigh the consequences of their decisions.

Like others, Marshall believes that "only one or two people" is likely to fit the whistleblower's description of the newspaper.

And that the latter therefore put him "potentially in danger", especially as some supporters of Mr. Trump "sometimes act extremely" against his opponents.

For him, describing him as an experienced agent of the CIA would have been enough to establish his credibility.

While he also believes that this man could be in danger, Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism at Columbia University, judges the decision of the newspaper "justified".

As a CIA agent, he had to "know there were risks and take precautions," he says.

Moreover, "he works for an organization dedicated to security". If his hierarchy failed to protect him, even in the current polarized political climate, "heads would fall," he says.

- Future hero? -

Unlike Edward Snowden, the NSA intelligence agency employee who had disclosed to the press the existence of a global communications and internet surveillance system or to Chelsea Manning, a soldier who had sent thousands of documents At WikiLeaks in 2010, this officer seems very cautious: he complied with all the rules on filing complaints and worked in consultation with specialized lawyers, says Kathleen McClellan, Deputy Director of the whistleblower protection program. NGO "ExposeFacts".

But someone coming from the information is always very exposed to the risk of reprisals, underlines this expert.

Unlike other professional sectors, he can not go to court against his employer and has no other recourse than to complain to the executive: if the president wanted him to pay for his action, he could not to pity ... than to the presidency, "she said.

For McClellan, the media must "respect the whistleblowers' right to anonymity" and "focus on their revelations".

The "credibility" argument advanced by The New York Times does not, it argues, hold because the intelligence inspector to whom the officer sent his report had already found it "credible", an "unusual" fact.

Anyway, Todd Gitlin expects the identity of the whistleblower will be known soon, especially as the Congress wishes to audition.

And when it will be revealed, "his name will fit forever in history books, like Daniel Ellsberg," the former military analyst who had leaked confidential documents on planning for the war in Vietnam, predicted Friday the historian Douglas Brinkley, in the Washington Post.

© 2019 AFP