Close Topic Options

If You Were Judith Miller

Judge orders New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed for refusing to divulge source who revealed CIA operative.
Ref. CNN.com

Miller Judith You If

While I think it is important that journalists have some anonymous sources and be trusted by them, no one is above the law. The Courts have ruled. I believe the journalist must do what is ordered. No different than if it were you or me.

Also, in this case, the information leaked came from a source close to the President. This should be revealed. In addition, the information put that woman at great risk and effectively ruined her career. That shouldn't be allowed.

If You Were Judith Miller History & Civil Business Politics

Being a journalist I am a little bit biased. But I think shooting the messenger is the real crime here.

Judith Miller didn't even report this information. Anonymous sources are vital for investigative reporting. If sources aren't protected than incidents like the Watergate scandal would never surface.

A journalist's role is to find out the truth. Their work makes governments, companies, organisations and individuals accountable to the public.

If a source feels threatened by revealing information, but that information is extremely important to the public interest, what incentive would they have for whistleblowing?

If we set precedents where sources feel they can not trust journalists we can kiss goodbye to democracy as we know it. A free press is the gatekeeper of a democracy. Because without the fourth estate, NOBODY is accountable. Government's will be able to lie as they please, companies could rort whoever they want etc.

Now the real criminal in this case is the government official who revealed the information. It was an official that wanted to ruin the reputation of someone who spoke against the Iraq War, so it is likely that this was quite a deliberate political stunt from the government. Miller had nothing to do with this. And it's not Miller's responsibility to help the government discipline those who break the law.

While journalists endure a torrid reputation within the public sphere, people rely on their ability to uncover the truth. That ability must be protected.

So many people in society are above the law, least of all cops, politicians, people with vast amounts of money etc. That said, journalists aren't breaking any law by protecting sources.

Edited: arvhic on 7th Jul, 2005 - 10:29am

Miller Judith You If

I am asking this question based on genuine interest to know your response. Arvhic, so would you in this same situation be willing to go to jail for many years leaving your children and spouse (if you have any) behind, be tormented and your career left in shambles just for the sake of keeping a secret? What would be the basis for it? Principle, honor or fear?

Personally I do not think I could remain silent and would never make such promises no matter what the story was about. It could be that Judith may have been given the promise to have lawyers appeal / fight for her? Maybe Judith thought she would come out better for it?

Miller Judith You If

arvhic, I agree with you in most situations. However, in a case where the data leaked is a matter of national security such as this, I think protection cannot and should not be afforded. This person was a member of the CIA. I believe that information is likely classified. I also think the person who wrote the story belongs in jail.

This particular story didn't break any scandal that the public needed to know, in my opinion. It released the name of a CIA operative. I don't see that as something anyone needs to know. Tell your story, but you don't need to release the name of an operative, which effectively ended her career and put her life in jeopardy as well. If you can't tell the story without releasing classified information or without compromising national security, then I don't think the story should be published. I don't think it should be "the story at all costs."

I think there needs to be limits because some in the media have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to police themselves.

If You Were Judith Miller

EDITORIAL: FREE JUDITH MILLER NOW

How's this for an interesting comparison: Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser to President Clinton, last week was fined $50,000, given two years probation and sentenced to 100 hours of community service for illegally removing secret papers from the National Archives. Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who never published anything top secret, continues to sit in jail because she won't divulge the name of a source.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...53642%2C00.html

If You Judith Miller

I have no problem with releasing Judith Miller right now. However, I do think she is milking this situation, since there is evidence that her source has given permission to release the name.

Of course the big thing here is that there was no crime in "outing" Ms. Plame! She was not protected by the law in question.

If You Judith Miller Politics Business Civil & History

I am also a journalist and I know if I was Judith Miller I would probably NOT reveal the name of my source even if the source give me the "ok".
Consequences to reveal such a name of a powerful source can be devasted, I would not compromise my source in any circumnstance. I think is very unfair that so many people are free and commiting all kind of federal offenses and Judith just because she does not want to reveal the name of her source still in jail *shaking head*. I admire her strenght, commitment and principles.