There are two competing editorials today about the Judy Miller story and the rights and responsibilities of journalists to protect sources, offer anonymity, and cooperate in criminal investigations.
First, in the New York Times, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger defends Ms. Miller for the crime of "doing her job as the founders of this nation intended."
Meanwhile, Michael Kinsley argues in the LA Times that we must weigh the value to the public interest in keeping the confidentiality of news sources vs. that of undercover espionage agents.
Here's Mr. Sulzbergers argument:
From
"The Promise of the First Amendment":
An essential tool that the press must have if it is to perform its job is the ability to gather and receive information in confidence from those who would face reprisals for bringing important information about our government into the light of day for all of us to examine. Without an enforceable promise of confidentiality, sources would quickly dry up and the press would be left largely with only official government pronouncements to report.
I think he's oversimplifying. Everyone would agree that reporters should be able to receive information from whistleblowers when abuses are being committed, or information of public import is being kept secret. But where in the first amendment does it articulate the necessity to protect those who would anonymously smear whistleblowers? Where does it say we should protect those who would illegally compromise our national security assets? Sulzberger is creating a false dichotomy -- either they can use anonymous sources whenever they say they need them, or democracy is dead.
Instead, Mr. Kinsley suggests we carefully consider each instance in which anonymity is requested and weigh the value of the information vs. the consequence of the information becoming public.
From
"The Cult of the Source":
In the cult of the anonymous source, worshippers visualize the object of their adoration as a noble dissident, courageously revealing malfeasance by a powerful institution that will wreak a horrible revenge if the source is uncovered. But most leaks from newsworthy institutions are more like the one in the news now. This was a leak plotted by the powerful institution itself -- the White House -- for the purpose of stomping on exactly the kind of dissident (the operative's husband this time) who plays the hero's role in the generic leak fantasy.
[...]What journalism needs is guidelines about when a source should be promised anonymity. The more refined and widely accepted these guidelines are, the fewer times a journalist must face the choice of betrayal or jail. This isn't much help for those who already made these promises. But if the profession would only display a bit of perspective about its own importance and its own problems, maybe society -- and the special prosecutor -- could be persuaded to allow past promises to be kept, in exchange for less promiscuous promising in the future.
[...]Anonymous-source absolutists say that if you start making distinctions between good leaks and bad leaks, or important leaks and unimportant leaks, or leaks that depend on promised anonymity and leaks that would happen anyway, potential leaks of all sorts will plug up. No doubt selectivity about anonymity would have a chilling effect on all leaks, not just bad or unimportant ones. "Who's to decide what serves the public interest?" is a good argument for the absolutist approach. Or it would be if protecting journalists' sources never had any cost to anyone else. But it does.
What I like about Kinsley's argument is that he effectively articulates how leaks can be used as a tactic to smear and discredit, with no consequence even when significant harm is done. He argues for reporters and editors to carefully consider the grey area that doesn't exist in Mr. Sulzbergers straight, black-vs-white world.
I'm awfully tempted to write a LTE to the NY Times and tell them why I'm happy to see her go to jail for her other crimes, but even I know the judicial system doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way.