Judith Miller has been sent to jail for refusing to comply with a court order that she testify before the Plame grand jury. While I have discussed the legal aspects in depth
here, I think another aspect is important - Judith Miller is doing the right thing in not revealing her source. Miller has been a terrible journalist for the past four years. Her work on Iraq and WMD was negligent bordering on criminal. [NOTE: My use of "criminal" is hyperbole. Obviously she broke no laws with her coverage, just her reputation as a journalist.] But she is right and courageous in not revealing her sources here.
I think the NYTimes Ed Board gets alot right in their editorial today:
. . . One of our reporters, Judith Miller, has decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources. . . .
She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.
Is she doing it for that? I can't look into Judith Miller's heart, but the practical effect is the same - she is standing for a free press.
Many of you have scoffed at this idea. My earlier post attempted to argue why this is so. The NYTimes argues the point well here.
I present the argument in extended.
We do not see how a newspaper, magazine or television station can support a reporter's decision to protect confidential sources even if the potential price is lost liberty, and then hand over the notes or documents that make the reporter's sacrifice meaningless. The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected. No journalist's promise will be worth much if the employer that stands behind him or her is prepared to undercut such a vow of secrecy.
I think that seems difficult to dispute. Now why is it important that a promise of confidentiality be confidently relied upon by a source? Again, the Times answers the question better than I did:
Before he went to jail, [Times reporter] Farber told the court that if he gave up documents that revealed the names of the people he had promised anonymity, "I will have given notice that the nation's premier newspaper is no longer available to those men and women who would seek it out - or who would respond to it - to talk freely and without fear."
While The Times has gone to great lengths lately to make sure that the use of anonymous sources is limited, there is no way to eliminate them. The most important articles tend to be the ones that upset people in high places, and many could not be reported if those who risked their jobs or even their liberty to talk to reporters knew that they might be identified the next day. In the larger sense, revealing government wrongdoing advances the rule of law, especially at a time of increased government secrecy.
Finally, the Times recognizes the moral difficulty that THIS case presents for the protection of confidential sources, but still rightly defends the principle:
To be frank, this is far from an ideal case. We would not have wanted our reporter to give up her liberty over a situation whose details are so complicated and muddy. But history is very seldom kind enough to provide the ideal venue for a principled stand. Ms. Miller is going to jail over an article that she never wrote, yet she has been unwavering in her determination to protect the people with whom she had spoken on the promise of confidentiality.
. . . It seemed very possible that someone at the White House had told Mr. Novak about Ms. Plame to undermine Mr. Wilson's credibility and send a chilling signal to other officials who might be inclined to speak out against the administration's Iraq policy. At the time, this page said that if those were indeed the circumstances, the leak had been "an egregious abuse of power." We urged the Justice Department to investigate. But we warned then that the inquiry should not degenerate into an attempt to compel journalists to reveal their sources.
. . . What we do know is that if Ms. Miller testifies, it may be immeasurably harder in the future to persuade a frightened government employee to talk about malfeasance in high places, or a worried worker to reveal corporate crimes. The shroud of secrecy thrown over this case by the prosecutor and the judge, an egregious denial of due process, only makes it more urgent to take a stand.
I agree. Unfortunately, the editiorial decides to attack Mr. Fitzgerald for doing HIS job. It mars an otherwise spot on editorial in my opinion.
But the bottom line is this, Judith Miller deserves praise for the important fight she wages now. Just as surely as she deserves our scorn for her performance in the run up to the Iraq Debacle.
I give her that praise here.
[DISCLOSURE] I represent Media clients, including in matters that require the protection of confidential sources.