Fallout for Judith Miller in Tuesday's Matthew Cooper Move? (Plame)

[TacticalPeek]

Shoptalk

Fallout for Judith Miller in Tuesday's Matthew Cooper Move?

As contempt charges again Time magazine are dropped, the New York Times fends off its own subpoena in Valerie Plame leak case.

By William E. Jackson Jr.


(August 25, 2004) -- Among the growing list of reporters that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald wants to talk with -- leading to subpoenas, one contempt charge so far and possible jail time -- the name of Judith Miller has raised the most eyebrows. No stranger to controversy, The New York Times reporter had not previously been thought to be tied to the Valerie Plame affair.

...

But the Times has never published any articles saying it ever received information about Plame's identity. A well-placed source within the paper tells me that Miller had not told her editors the leaker's name or Plame's identity, even though (in the opinion of the source) she seemed to have knowledge of both.

Miller, in any case, did not expose Plame in the way that Novak did in his syndicated column, which ran in The Washington Post. Yet Sulzberger referred to her "confidential sources" and said "journalists should not have to face the prospect of imprisonment for doing nothing more than aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions."

If Miller had Plame's name and identity, who was her source? If she didn't, why would she have been implicated in the current case?

more
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000617707

[MikeG]

1. Just the fact that they felt OK outing the agent to her says a lot.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. A simple fact that says volumes

One of those common sense things...

[redstateblues]

2. More Stalling- They have thrown the bloodhounds off the track

All these diversions are just delaying tactics, and they have worked.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. Sometimes the track is not direct though

and it seems that Miller may very well know who the leaker was.

[EST]

3. Man, I still don't get it.

You can almost number the real journalists on the thumbs of one hand. ALL the rest are just a big frippin' gossip club. The ruling junta are fascists who call themselves republicans and no one but us calls them on it. Shit, just lock that old fart, Novak for the rest of his life. He is guilty of treason, whatever the outcome. Aw, this is making too much sense. Forget I said anything.

[autorank]

4. Sulzberger should have said...

..."YOU'RE FIRED JUDY!!! You made the NYT look absurd." Of course, he will never say any such thing. I think Sulzberger is the problem. He is the Edsel Ford of journalism.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. kick

[SoCalDem]

6. Lots of "juicy" stuff here about Ms.Miller (disinfopedia)

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Judith_Miller

[TacticalPeek]

7. Kick Morning.

:kick:

[wishlist]

9. Article does a good job exposing her friendship with Libby's aide Hannah

Hope this continues to get more coverage so that more people realize how journalists have been manipulated to spread biased stories and their objectivity has been compromised by their innappropriate closeness with Bushco regime.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Could someone please explain to me -m

why in this situation journalists feel so obliged to keep their sources secret? Who are they protecting and why? This isn't some citizen whistle-blower, it's the government acting illegally and putting lives in danger. Is this really more important than maintaining some list of sources who'll talk to you?

Truly I don't get it. Wasn't there a great column a while back in Newsweek where Alter suggests that the journalists in the know leak to other journalists, who could then happily make the information known? Why are they keeping this under wraps?

[Supersedeas]

12. Sources, Secrets, and a Pledge of Confidence

I am not a journalist but I have friends who work in the field and they compare the obligation to keep their sources secret to that of other professionals who have a duty to maintain confidences (lawyers, doctors, and priests).

There are four justifications that typically come to mind.
1. First is a concern for privacy regarding personal information, respect for relationships, respect for bonds and promises that protect shared information, and the benefits of confidentiality to those who need advice, santuary, aid, and in turn the benefits to society as an outgrowth of this concern and respect.

2. Second is a respect, closely linked to the first, not only for the legitimacy of secrets, but the legitimacy of sharing them. Thus, we are assuming a respect for particular special relationships and for intimacy. It is rooted in loyalties that proceed the formulation and preserve these special relationships which are necessary and beneficial to society as a whole. Consider the marital privilege, according to which one spouse can not be forced to testify against the other. Keep in mind that even the marital privilege has limitations, one spouse can hide behind the privilege to protect the husbands abuse of children. Thus, out of respect for the martial family bond, some confidences are protected and in a sense this respect suggests that family bonds are important to society as a whole.

3. Third, a pledge of silence creates an obligation beyond respect due to the general public. Once we promise someone secrecy, we can no longer be considered fully impartial. What we promise to give is allegiance and what we promise to perform is some action that will guard the secret--to keep silent, at least, and perhaps to do more (eg. go to jail in order to maintain that confidence).

To invoke a promise does not foreclose the debate over pledges of secrecy. We can still consider whether it was right to make the pledge in the first place, and whether it was right to accept it, and even if there are circumstances that override the pledge.

These three justifications provide the basic foundation to support ordinary confidentiality. The fourth justification adds strength to the particular pledges given by professionals.

4. Because of the special position that certain professionals play in society, there is a social weight beyond ordinary loyalty to these special professional confidences. Professionals grant clients secrecy even when they would otherwise feel obligated to speak out. Lawyers conceal past crimes, Bankers conceal type and location of investors funds, Priests conceal sins they hear in confession. So too, journalist conceal the identity of informants.

In the case of journalists:
According to this argument, the individual (leaker) benefits from such confidentiality because it allows them to seek help and expose some (government) wrongdoing, without having to risk jeopardizing a career whose very existence is based on guarding (government) secrets.

Society benefits, in an age where government has become more and more insular and secretive, in so much as government abuse that would overwise go undetected is exposed to the voting public for further scrutiny.

The journalist benefits, in so much as he/she is perceived as a trustworthy and reliable conduit of information to the public without risking the exposure of the informant and thus chilling other informants from coming forward due to that breach of confidence. When both the public and potential informants trust the journalist, everyone, including the journalist, profits when the big story breaks.

Thus, the negative argument goes this way: In an age when government activies are closely held, insular and secretive, the number of potential informants is incrementally reduced. Since fewer and fewer people have the quantity and quality of information that can make a difference, catering to the confidentiality needs of members of these exclusive groups and potential members of even smaller groups in the future is necessary for the well being of an educated democracy today and in the future. The journalist, in his role as a conduit for an educated democracy in an age of secrecy, plays an important role that would be forfeited if/when the pledge of confidentiality is breached.

To your question: who are they protecting and why?
My friends would say that they are protecting the source who may have more information to provide in the future and potentially other future sources who are members of even smaller groups, who without a trustworthy pledge of confidence would not and could not continue to provide information that is necessary for an educated electorate. Thus, they are protecting today and tomorrows courageous (anonymous) whistleblowers and in so much as that information has an impact on democracy--they are also protecting the public at large.

Trying to circumvent the pledge by leaking the information to another journalist is a breach that really avoids the obligation all together and thus forfeits some "benefits" (mentioned above) that might flow to society from it (if breached in YOUR suggested manner consistently).

Whether or not it was appropriate to make a pledge of confidence in Plame matter is a different story and whether or not the pledge can and ought to be overridden is another matter apart from the social good of recognizing confidentiality pledges generally.

IMHO, the FAIR article makes a distinction that ought to receive more credance from journalists prior to making the pledge of secrecy. The intent of the "informant" makes all the difference as to whether a pledge of secrecy is deserved.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Thank you. I guess "intent" is exactly what I'm getting at -m

You said:
According to this argument, the individual (leaker) benefits from such confidentiality because it allows them to seek help and expose some (government) wrongdoing, without having to risk jeopardizing a career whose very existence is based on guarding (government) secrets.

That's where I think this situation differs from the usual. The leak itself is the government wrongdoing. By in a sense, agreeing to partake in that action, the journalists become accessories to the wrongdoing.

Does this mean they get no further info from Rove (or whoever)? Well, first, they're not likely getting much to begin with, and second, it's hard to leak effectively from behind bars.

I completely take your points, but I do think this situation differs greatly from the usual, and that a careful examination is in order -- rather than a reflexive response of protect my source(s) at all costs!

[Supersedeas]

15. Check on Abuse v. Handmaiden to Government Abuse

Hmmm...not quite sure I follow your version of the distinction, CT.

1. The leak itself is the government wrongdoing.

Yep, and probably is in many other cases involving a courageous forthright whistleblower with the public interest at heart. Consider the position of most whistleblowers. The message and actions of many whistleblowers is a violation of Federal law. His/her insider's position carries with it certain obligations to collegues and to clients. He/she may have signed a promise of confidentiality or loyalty oath or acknowledgement of the proper chain by which to file 'official' grievances. When the whistleblower steps out of the routine channels to level accusations, he/she is breaching these obligations and in some cases violating Federal law in the process.

They know the price of betrayal. They know, too, how organizations protect and ENLARGE the area of what is concealed, as failures and breaches of trust multiply and vested interests encrouch. The whistleblower is aware that they violate, by speaking out, not only loyalty but usually their position in this or any future hierarchy as well--and thus make it harder for deeper truths that they may be unaware of to reach the public.

One example: Paul O'Neil, the former US Treasury Secretary
Consider how Paul O'Neil was treated when he violated the trust of Bush Admin. insiders by publishing a book. Some immediately accused him of violating Federal Law by revealing confidential information.

My point is that journalists are confronted with many informants whose act of leaking information may be, if pressed, a violation of some Federal law designed to discourage....disclosure. In this sense too, the journalist may become an accessory to the wrongdoing by publishing this information. However, that technical violation of Federal law may serve a greater public good. Sometimes, a disclosure which amounts to a violation of Federal law benefits the public even when the leaker and the journalist are strictly speaking accessories to a crime.

2. Does this mean that they get no further information from Rove (or whoever)?

Yes, my position is that protecting sources (though I'm trying not to be too reflexive) should be a standard (with exceptions), even when the journalist is required to protect a slimy wrong-doer in some cases. If we find out no more about the Rove...errr...Plame case, that sacrifice may be worth maintaining the broader social concept of the journalistic privilege, IMHO. Why...because their may be others. Others who know deepers secrets that the Bushies may not want exposed that someone is waiting...weighing...looking for the most trustworthy journalist to contact...someone to be trusted when the pressure really really really mounts.

For many whistleblowers, even those who take their responsibilities to the public seriously, an unauthorized disclosure is a very close call and the risk involved in exposing government secrets makes doing the right thing a narrower and narrower opportunity--especially when that particular disclosure amounts to a Federal crime. When a journalist breaches confidence and if systematically our society comes to expect a breach of confidence, then that narrow-narrow opportunity of exposure just might be completely closed off.

Journalist who do investigative reporting know this. And the ones who are the best realize that they may have to go to jail in order to protect a source (some leakers who have risked nothing) to ensure that some source in the future (who risks everything) might come forward.

Consider an alternative version of the Plame scenario:

My emphasis is on the message sent to future whisteblowers (and maybe to some 'other' source that may be involved in the Plame matter.)

Hypothetically, what if the slimeball that attempted to smear Wilson by contacting Novak is not the same informant who contacted another source to REVEAL/EXPOSE that the slimeball attempted to contact 6 other sources as well.

2 Leaks: One smearing Wilson--revealing Plame--by contacting Novak.
Another EXPOSING the depth of the attempted smear by REVEALING how many other newspaper sources were contacted.

2 Potential leakers here: the slimeball-political-smear-guy and the other whistleblower courageous enough to reveal the depth of the plan to smear Wilson.

In order to get the slimeball, would a journalist be required to reveal my 'hypothetical' other--the courageous whistleblower?

As a further alternative, under the same scenario, consider this:
Suppose the 'other' informant (the courageous whisteblower) is really the target, that the Grand Jury proceedings might just be a witchhunt initiated to seek out and destroy what the Bushies consider to be a disloyal mole (the courageous whistleblower) under the pretext of discovering the political smear guy.

I see your point, CT. This exceptional case fall outside of the journalist privilege. And the FAIR article makes a fine distinction. See:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/plame-lee.html

<<The motive and effect of government leaks are the critical questions, and courts can and should make a distinction between legitimate whistleblowing and illegitimate governmental attempts to use information as a weapon. If Valerie Plame's name had been leaked to expose an illegal covert operation, it would be an entirely different matter and should be treated as such by the legal system. The First Amendment exists so that the press can be a check on government abuse of power, not a handmaiden to it. >>

So, is the journalist who reveals my hypothetical 'courageous whisteblower' a check on abuse or a handmaiden to government abuse?

But for the beat journalist, in the same way that it is difficult to decipher the original intent of the leaker, it may be just as difficult to evaluate the motivations of the investigating prosecutor: are they just going on a fishing expedition--with no intent to prosecute anyone...but with real intent to discover a person who put their trust in the journalist and violated a loyalty oath to the administration.

Again, I am not saying that journalists can't make exceptions--they should in extreme cases. But, when they do--they too make a career decision that irreparably damages future opportunities for them...and maybe for all of us.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Thanks for taking the time - I do truly appreciate it

Have to say that I do still agree with FAIR in this case -- keeping silent abets the government wrongdoing instead of shining light on it.

But it's certainly not necessarily simple or black and white, is it?

[Supersedeas]

17. Keeping silent and shining the light

First, thanks for hearing me out, CT.

Ya, I don't disagree that keeping silent abets the government--for the time being...but keeping silent now just may shine a light on other matters yet to come.

At least, that is my hope. =)

[TacticalPeek]

14. Kick evening.

:kick: