What?! Integrity in Journalism?! It’s like Douglas Adams says, just when you think you’re starting to understand the universe, they up and replace it with something even more bizarre.
Somewhat more seriously, how long is her sentence for? And what’s the background of the case?
I agree with you regarding the idea that journalists who are protecting an anonymous whistleblower should not be forced to reveal their source’s identity in a court room. This case, though, is slightly different, in that the reporter in question (Judith Miller) is protecting a source who may be guilty of a crime (specifically, a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act). In fact, there is some speculation that Ms. Miller may have been directly involved in the leaking of information to others, in which case she may be guilty of a crime.
My point is that this particular case is much more involved than a simple example of a journalist being jailed for protecting a source. I am not sure the public has access to enough facts to make a strong statement one way or the other. It may turn out that the situation is as it seems, and this journalist is correctly standing up to protect an innocent, confidential source. If, however, some continued coverup of a previous crime is taking place, the situation may turn out quite differently.
I completely agree, jjk, it’s a really convoluted situation. What caused me to agree with the Times so strongly was their opinion on the Goverment’s lack of disclosure (and their near name calling of Novak). I think Miller should go to jail, but I also think there’s other fishy business going on out there.
What?! Integrity in Journalism?! It’s like Douglas Adams says, just when you think you’re starting to understand the universe, they up and replace it with something even more bizarre.
Somewhat more seriously, how long is her sentence for? And what’s the background of the case?
I agree with you regarding the idea that journalists who are protecting an anonymous whistleblower should not be forced to reveal their source’s identity in a court room. This case, though, is slightly different, in that the reporter in question (Judith Miller) is protecting a source who may be guilty of a crime (specifically, a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act). In fact, there is some speculation that Ms. Miller may have been directly involved in the leaking of information to others, in which case she may be guilty of a crime.
My point is that this particular case is much more involved than a simple example of a journalist being jailed for protecting a source. I am not sure the public has access to enough facts to make a strong statement one way or the other. It may turn out that the situation is as it seems, and this journalist is correctly standing up to protect an innocent, confidential source. If, however, some continued coverup of a previous crime is taking place, the situation may turn out quite differently.
I completely agree, jjk, it’s a really convoluted situation. What caused me to agree with the Times so strongly was their opinion on the Goverment’s lack of disclosure (and their near name calling of Novak). I think Miller should go to jail, but I also think there’s other fishy business going on out there.