Today the N.Y. Times
continues its drumbeat for the freeing of its resident martyr, Judith Miller.
In an editorial titled
Free Judy Miller ("Judy"!...not her professional name "Judith," mind you, but our familiar pal, our "Judy!") the Times decrees once again that the jailing of Ms. Miller is a crime against journalism and democracy itself.
The New York Times reporter Judith Miller has now been in jail longer for refusing to testify than any reporter working for a newspaper in America. It is a very long time for her, for her newspaper and for the media. And with each dismal milestone, it becomes more apparent that having her in jail is an embarrassment to a country that is supposed to be revered around the world for its freedoms, especially its First Amendment that provides freedom of the press. Ms. Miller, who went to jail rather than testify in an investigation into the disclosure of an undercover agent's identity, has been in a Virginia jail 55 days as of today.
Last week a Paris-based journalists' organization called Reporters Without Borders sent around an impressive petition in support of Ms. Miller. It was signed by prominent European writers, journalists and thinkers including Günter Grass, Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher, and Pedro Almodóvar, the Spanish filmmaker. The text should be required reading for the judge, the prosecutor and the White House. "At a time when the most extremist ideas are gaining ground, and when growing numbers of reporters are being killed or taken hostage, arresting a journalist in a democratic country is more than a crime: it's a miscarriage of justice," they wrote.
The Times would have us believe that Judith Miller's cause is a stand against extemists everywhere, rather than what has emerged as the reality: that Judith Miller was a WILLING TOOL of the extremists in the Bush administration, and by logical extension, an extremist herself.
And yes, there are some impressive names here. But I'm not confident they know the intricacies of this case.
Then they add this bunch of hooey:
That was only the latest of the petitions in support of Ms. Miller that have been pouring in from Americans like Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader, and people outside the United States. In one particularly poignant case, reporters in Pakistan - Pakistan, mind you - took time out from their own battles to send messages of support.
Don't EVEN start with the Bob Dole nonsense. Dole defended Miller in an op-ed in the pages of their very own newspaper. Do they mention this? Nahhh. And Dole has always been a vicious GOP hatchet-man. Why is it so bloody remarkable that he'd stop popping Viagra for a second to give aid and comfort to Karl Rove?
Dole was fine with lying to smear Kerry during the elections last year. The old bastard's never happier than when doing some GOP ratf*ck work. (...Except perhaps when watching Britney Spears gyrate on a Pepsi commercial, in which case he can't contain his newly-sprung-to-life erection.) This Dole-supports-us crap this just points to the desperation of the Times' case, and how they're trying to spin their own self-interest as somehing noble.
It's time for the authorities who jailed Ms. Miller to recognize that continued incarceration is not going to sway a reporter who believes she is making a principled sacrifice. As Jack Nelson, a veteran journalist for The Los Angeles Times, wrote recently: "Without leaks, without anonymity for some sources, a free press loses its ability to act as a check and a balance against the power of government." He cited Watergate, Iran-contra and President Bill Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky. If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose. This is not about Judith Miller or The Times or the outing of one C.I.A. agent. The jailing of this reporter is about the ability of a free press in America to do its job.
As has been the case all along the Times REFUSES to distinguish between:
- Journalists who are protecting confidential sources within government because they are whistleblowing on power, or exposing corruption, in the one hand, AND...
- "Journalists" who are acting -- consciously or not -- as mouthpieces for those in power, whose sources are either lying, or trying to politically destroy an opponent, or breaking U.S. laws.
The Times once again claims an ABSOLUTE right of reporters to hide sources, in all cases, no matter what -- even if someone in power is using them to disclose something specifically illegal in terms of national security.
Of course, reasonable people understand that even the latter is necessary at times -- laws sometimes must be broken for the greater good. And sometimes the laws themselves are undemocratic.
But THAT is the proving ground for real reporters, and exactly why they must be impeccable in sizing up the motives of their sources, as then being rigorous in checking the veracity of their claims / information.
So if they want to defend Miller (sorry, "Judy") as making a "principled sacfricie," I say: Ok, let's stop the whining and talk about EXACTLY what those alleged principles are.
The Times wants us to believe in a simplistic world of poor little Times reporters as victims. They WON'T address the serious concerns above. So it's past time to stop the self-interested spin, and the hand-wringing, and make them answer like goddamned adults.
Their new public editor, Byron Calame, has yet to weigh in on the issue (unless I'm missing something in his accumulated columns and postings thus far). Calame started out with some promise, given simply that he was NOT the odious hack Daniel Okrent. But I notice he has time to addresss the Air America "scandal" in his musings, while he says nary a peep about the ten-ton elephant sitting right smack in the Times' own living room.
I invite people to join me pressuring Calame to address this issue SERIOUSLY.
To wit: Why in the world won't the Times distinguish between confidential sources who are actual whistleblowers, confronting power (on the one hand) and sources who ARE the powerful, trying to smear opponents?
Are they claiming that their "principle" is simply to take dictation from anyone in power who asks them?
Where are their standards? And finally -- WHY in the world won't they call on the White House to release "Judy" from her confidentiality, unless she's protecting something / someone other than good jounalism, and the public interest?
Let's stop the tap dance, and get some real answers. Here's the public editor's contact info:
BYRON CALAME, Public Editor
E-mail: public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959