Miller's no Martyr

Today's New York Times features a double-length editorial praising its reporter Judith Miller for her decision to go to prison rather than reveal who from the White House leaked to her the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. In a supreme irony, the paper all but beatifies Miller for "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."

Funny, because this whole story is about retaliation from government--for the a Times op-ed written by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, exposing the lie of the Bush administration's tales of Nigerian yellowcake. And when the Bush team, looking to send a clear message to any other would-be Ellsbergs that speaking out against the administration would have dire personal consequences, among the first journalists they turned to was Judy Miller, who had so effectively carried water for the administration on the question of Iraq's imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

It's likely that the special prosecutor in the Plame investigation, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, already knows everything that Miller could tell him. He's got phone records; he's got, or will soon have, all the information from Time magazine and its reporter Matt Cooper; and he also almost certainly has testimony from "douchebag for liberty" Robert Novak, whose silence and evident legal safety both suggests he sang like a canary.

I think that Daniel Ellsberg is one of the great Americans of modern times, and I feel that whether or not he merits the "hero" label, Mark Felt did this country a great service as well. The Times, in its effort to lionize Miller, compares her to both. But the principle in question, however noble and however worrisome its abuse might be, can't be considered in the absence of context. Ellsberg and Felt were involved in efforts to expose and curb government lies and abuses. Miller's refusal to talk serves to protect such abuses.

•  You got it exactly right

  Miller was a participant and helped "plant" false info nd has disgraced the reputation of the NYT.
  There is a huge difference between a "anonomously sourced story" and a "anonamously planted story"

   

  by ctkeith on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:11:56 AM PDT

  •  dude...

    stories are planted all the time... the answer isn't to expose the source (ensuring that no source ever comes forward again)...talk about throwing out the baby...

    by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:22:36 AM PDT

    •  and a good reporter

      knows enough when they're being used to figure that out and find the truth. Judy wasn't a reporter at all ,she was,and is, a propagandist.

      by ctkeith on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 12:56:49 PM PDT

•  the Times op-ed

  I was hoping that at least they'd find room, in this lengthy piece, to acknowledge that her credibility (and theirs) was undermined by the breathless WMD stories. But, not a word.

  by dajafi on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:14:28 AM PDT

•  Judith Miller is a criminal, not a hero.

  I managed to catch some of Mike Malloy's program last night, and he received a call from someone who was of the same mind as the rest of us, except that he could not get past the fact that anonymous media sources must be protected. Unfortunately, this caller was only half-right.

  An anonymous source is an incredible tool in investigative journalism. It allows people who feel they are or would be intimidated or targeted for revenge. It allows whistleblowers to come forward. This was the case with W. Mark Felt.

  In the case of Ms. Miller however, she is not protecting the identity of a whistleblower. She is protecting someone who broke federal law - someone who violated the identity of a covert ingelligence officer, violated the trust of the government, and violated their oath of office. In short, she is protecting a person who has committed treason against the government and the people of the United States, and therefore is an accessory after the fact. This is the reason she is sitting in jail for 4 months.

  A similar situation recently happened here in Providence. A local television reporter, who provided evidence that led to the conviction of Providence mayor Vincent Cianci, refused to reveal the source of a videotape showing Cianci taking a bribe. It turns out the video was from FBI surveillance and was given to the reporter by an attorney involved in the prosecution. Such an act violated the court's gag order, and the reporter was sentenced to 5 months of home confinement for not revealing the source (which he revealed just before sentencing, as if to prove his point).

  This is the issue that the Supreme Court was addressing - does a journalist have the right to protect an anonymous source when that source is either a potential criminal or is personally restricted from revealing such information because it is pertinent to a criminal case. Originally when this ruling came out, I was appalled. After reading it, and realizing that this case was completely different than it was portrayed by the media (what else is new), I completely agree with it. Miller is protecting a criminal, and should be treated the same as if she drove the getaway car for a bank robbery.

  by Scoopster on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:44:53 AM PDT

  •  So let me ask...

    Suppose Bob Woodward had received an order to turn Felt over, because Felt was the focus of a criminal investigation regarding illegal leaks... You're telling me that Bob Woodward would be driving the "getaway car" if he had refused? ... After all, no matter what Felt provided as a "whistleblower", you'd HAVE to say,

    "I completely agree with it. Woodward is protecting a criminal, and should be treated the same as if he drove the getaway car for a bank robbery.

    In fact, doesn't your position create the INCENTIVE to start (potentially frivolous) criminal investigations as a way around conventional source protections??

    by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:34 AM PDT

    •  You've got it backwards.

      Woodward was not protecting a criminal. He was protecting someone who was blowing the whistle on a criminal, who did not want retribution from those comitting the actual crime.

      Miller's crime is one of accessory and omission - choosing not to reveal the name of a Bush Administration official who illegally told her the identity of a CIA covert operative. In contrast to Mark Felt, Miller is obstructing a federal investigation into treason instead of protecting someone who is trying to stop such activity.

      All of us here in the blogging community, as well as the mainstream press, have concerns over this particular situation because it affects one of the most useful tools in our work. However, we have to know where to draw the line between protecting those who are doing the right thing and protecting those who are only seeking to discredit us and frighten those who want to tell the truth about crimes against the citizens and the country as a whole.

      by Scoopster on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:47:13 AM PDT

      •  more...

        Woodward was not protecting a criminal. He was protecting someone who was blowing the whistle on a criminal, who did not want retribution from those comitting the actual crime.

        It's easy to say this from a position of retrospect. But at the time, Felt KNEW he might fall under investigation... And therefore, there's NO WAY he would have come forward if he didn't think Woodward was willing to go to jail for him....

        In contrast to Mark Felt, Miller is obstructing a federal investigation into treason instead of protecting someone who is trying to stop such activity.

        Give me a break... Show me any proof that this investigation is formally about TREASON... I haven't seen anything along those lines so far... The point is that imo the bar should be set very, very, very high for a reporter to give up a source -- maybe murder, or giving the enemy war plans, etc... Run of the mill law enforcement is too weak a test...

        by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:44:55 AM PDT

        •  Obviously you don't think....

          (I promise that's an incomplete thought...)

          Obviously you don't think that Judith Miller is protecting someone who deliberately leaked a CIA agent's name then?

          Obviously you don't believe that this was done deliberately to prevent the truth about the reasoning for PREEMPTIVE WAR AND THE MURDER OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS..

          How many dead bodies does it take before this administration of liars, thieves, corporate gourmands and MURDERERS is exposed for what it really is? How many times is the media going to let Bush BALL GAG AND BUTTFUCK THEM before they say the safe word?

          Look, unlike a lot of people here I don't think Judy is in on the whole thing. I think she, like Jim Taricani here in Providence, believes she is standing up to protect the First Amendment. I commend her for that. However there has to be some kind of line that a REAL, PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST draws between unjust persecution for their sources and the intent of those sources to mislead the public AND/OR put another person in harm's way. In this case, her refusal to say who leaked Plame's name not only endangered Plame and WIlson, but it directly lead to the death of THOUSANDS.

          by Scoopster on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:18:24 PM PDT

          •  I think she and the Times are doing it

            to uphold a principle...and the ferver with which you speak about the administration vindicates my initial point -- that you guys are politically motivated first and foremost here...

            ...Ultimately, I'm defending HER decision to go to jail... to send the right signal to future sources that they'll be protected when coming forward... Sure, this isn't the case you'd really like -- but she took a stand nonetheless...so real whistleblowers DO come forward in the future...

            I'm with her...

            by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:38:07 PM PDT

•  My letter to Judy

  Send your own:
  Dear Ms. Miller,

  While I very much support freedom of the press, I find it very difficult to feel any pity for you.

  Your efforts to support the administration's case for war in Iraq have convinced me that you are either a horribly negligent journalist or that you intentionally misled the American people. I know you've said that your "job was not to collect information and analyze it independently" -- though that seems to me the very definition of journalism -- but your blind acceptance of the administration's b.s. is nearly criminal in itself.

  Do you ever wonder how much cover your stories may have given to Bushies who were itching to start a war? What aid you gave to their disproven cause? Do you think that guilt can be divided into, say, a percentage? If so, then for how many of my fellow soldiers' deaths does your writing account?

  And now you want to be seen as a martyr for the cause of truth, despite the fact you're only serving, yet again, as a tool for the Bush administration. You're not simply protecting a source. You are a co-conspirator in a crime.

  I recently returned from Afghanistan, where I worked in military public affairs. I saw so many journalists who were willing to question and verify every fact they were presented to craft even small stories. I respected that. That's the job. I've also worked as a journalist and I know how difficult (but necessary) that kind of nitpicking is. That experience makes me all the more disgusted by your actions, Ms. Miller. I hope you take this time in jail to consider the demands the trust of the American people should place on you. If you cannot meet those demands, I suggest you give up this profession. Perhaps you could write (more) fiction.

  SSG Terry L. Welch
  105th MPAD
  Kansas National Guard

  by nitpicker on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 08:56:07 AM PDT

•  scoopster/nitpicker comments

  Thanks for making the point more eloquently than I did.

  In addition to writing Miller, we need to figure out how to get this argument into mainstream circulation--at least through writing to the op-ed page of the Times and other major outlets. Maybe even the less overtly partisan cable pundit shows. Let them try to refute the "Getaway car" argument.

  by dajafi on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 09:25:05 AM PDT

•  You guys are lost...

  ...sounds to me like you're simply rationalizing your POLITICAL aspirations here -- the end is having W crumble; the means is "anything it takes"...

  Honestly answer this for me...  

  Suppose somebody close to Clinton leaked grand jury testimony -- breaking the law in the process -- to tarnish Ken Starr... And a reporter went to jail because she wouldn't reveal that source... Is there any remote chance you'd be making the same case? ...

  My guess is I'd be hearing that it's the principle that's at stake here... that this isn't about a reporter covering up a crime; it's about the press fighting for the room to act without being bullied by those in power... and that would be the CORRECT position, imo...

  But it's even worse... If you'd read the whole piece today, you'd see that it's merely on Fitgerald's whim -- not specific word of a criminal indictment -- that Miller was ordered to turn over her sources...

  And this distinction between whistleblowing and criminal activity is bullshit... What if Mark Felt DID actually commit a crime in his leak -- and what if BW had been ordered to hand over his source?? ...by the standard of the posters here, BW would be "protecting such abuses"... this line you're painting is way to fuzzy for an public official to risk it... The only guarantee is that no matter what the circumstances, when a source is given up, people in power won't come forward any more... period...

  The NY Times and Miller are heroes here... standing up for the principle... give up the political agenda for at least ONE item, please

  hank
  

  by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 09:58:30 AM PDT

  •  Big IF

    Felt didn't commit a crime and BW wasn't forced to reveal his source.  But with your big IF, I would say yeah, Felt should have been exposed IF he commited a treasonous crime.  That's a no-brainer for me, but then again, I'm a goody-two-shoes.

    by fabooj on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:36:45 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely.

    Suppose somebody close to Clinton leaked grand jury testimony -- breaking the law in the process -- to tarnish Ken Starr... And a reporter went to jail because she wouldn't reveal that source... Is there any remote chance you'd be making the same case? ...

    Leaking grand jury testimony before it is unsealed by the judge is called contempt of court. No matter the political or personal reasoning behind it, it is still a crime. A professional journalist should know better than to do something so blatantly illegal, and frankly stupid!

    And this distinction between whistleblowing and criminal activity is bullshit...

    Cmon that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Whistleblowing is an action done to prevent or rectify a negligent or criminal act. Miller's refusal to reveal her source is doing exactly the opposite - it is protecting "a senior administration official" who violated two acts of Congress and their oath of office by leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent.

    Let's look at it another way - if Miller were protecting Plame's identity as a whistleblower against the Bush Administration's case for the war, THAT would be a valid defensible reason not to reveal the identity of the source.

    by Scoopster on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

    •  further

      Cmon that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Whistleblowing is an action done to prevent or rectify a negligent or criminal act. Miller's refusal to reveal her source is doing exactly the opposite - it is protecting "a senior administration official" who violated two acts of Congress and their oath of office by leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent.

      Sorry... I don't mean that there's no objective distinction... I mean that from a potential source's viewpoint, it's very fuzzy.... That's why I keep coming back to Felt. At the time, it was very possible that he might face an investigation... So he had to ask, do I go to Woodward, knowing that he might get ordered to turn me in?...And do I think he will turn me in? The point is that if a source knows that a reporter will make a value judgment on that distinction (vs. a firm promise not to divulge), he/she simply won't risk coming forward about ANYTHING...it just simply won't be worth risking a career or life... Again, I'm talking about the implications for how future sources see the press rolling over...THAT'S the principle at stake...  

      by Hkingsley on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:55:39 AM PDT

      •  Yes, he could have faced an investigation..

        However, not only did it never happen, but even if he had the information would have been in Woodward's hands ex post facto, and would've led to Felt either being cleared or to a plea deal. In that instance, Deep Throat would've died in 1973-4 with Nixon's presidency.

        by Scoopster on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 04:21:18 PM PDT