WP: Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y. Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe

[DeepModem Mom]

Legal Analysts Critical of N.Y. Times Reporter's Stance in Leak Probe

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; Page A07


Tim Russert of NBC, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post and Matthew Cooper of Time were all subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame leak investigation. But only New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail....Although many media advocates hail Miller's sacrifice for what she and the Times see as a bedrock journalistic principle of protecting a promise to a source, some legal analysts say her imprisonment stems from a confrontational legal strategy adopted by the Times.

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said journalists, like doctors and lawyers, are under no obligation to remain silent about a source who has waived confidentiality. "It's the source's privilege, not the reporter's," he said. "If the source doesn't want confidentiality, the reporter has no business insisting on it. . . . If it's a matter of conscience instead of a matter of law, you can do whatever you want. As a legal matter, it's absurd."...

***

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said "the Times's legal strategy was to back up their reporter. This was Judy, and she said right up front, 'I'm not cooperating, period.' " She said Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. "is willing to stand on this principle, and I don't think there's any way he would have tried to talk her into compromising."

Stone and other legal experts say they assume that Novak has testified under some sort of waiver or compromise. Miller, by contrast, never wrote a story about the Plame matter.

Miller was not protecting a classic whistle-blower bent on exposing wrongdoing, Stone said, but rather officials who were seeking to discredit Wilson. "In this context, you're talking about people who were violating the law and manipulating the press," he said....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201402.html

[Straight Shooter]

1. Oooh, Judy, Judy, Judy, you look more like a fool every day.

Can we get into a war of words between WaPo and the NYT?

:woohoo:

[IndianaGreen]

4. Miller is protecting Cheney

I recoil at the use of the term "journalist" when referring to neocon AIPAC propagandist Judith Miller. Miller is not standing for a journalistic principle. She has none! The woman that spread all of the Chalabi lies about WMD in Iraq is now the drama queen of the discredited journalism profession.

There have been reports that at least one journalist had told government officials that Valerie Plame was CIA. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Judith Miller is playing this charade of protecting her "sources" is because she doesn't want to plead the Fifth in front of the grand jury.

[fob]

5. Thank you. I didn't get a chance to post this earlier after listening

to Randi Rhodes drone on about miller protecting rove. NO Randi there is more than ONE source, miller's protecting cheney*!

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Actually , Judith is protecting herself

because she not a real journalist. At best she a propagandist for Bu$hCo and at worst she's a mole for the PNAC/Israel.

I am sure she has a lot to hide and she is desperate enough that she is willing to go to jail rather then allow anyone to start digging through her records and/or force her to answer questions under oath.

[leftchick]

8. I agree she has a lot to hide

and I do hope to see her jail stay extended....

~snip~

Miller could be jailed for four months, the time remaining in the current grand jury's term. During last week's hearing, however, Fitzgerald described her as "breaking the law" and having committed a "crime." He could take the unusual step of trying to convert her civil contempt to a charge of criminal contempt, which, if she were convicted, would carry a longer jail term.


... ugh, I hope they don't let her publish columns of dreck from jail!

[Uncle Joe]

14. I agree Judy Gannon is just protecting her own butt.

She cares about as much for the integrity of her supposed profession of journalism as Rumsfield does for the Geneva Conventions Treaties, it is all quaint.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Sulzberger's in over his head

This is what happens when the boss' son inherits the top job.

Reminds me of the presidency, come to think of it.

[halobeam]

3. couldn't have said that better myself.

:rofl:

[BQueen]

6. Great OpEd on Judy in LATimes

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0706-05.htm

Notes, correctly, that there is no such thing as an "absolute privilege," calls JM on her lack of any evidence of "integrity" up to this point, and mocks "the media's love-fest for Judith Miller, 1st Amendment Martyr."

Excellent final jab, too ...

[JusticeForAll]

9. Is she really protecting anyone?

Seems like she's responsible for keeping the story in the media for MUCH much longer than the usual corruption and lies story that emanates from this administration!! I think without her role this story would have died.

With one of "their own" in jail, let's hope that the press's WH briefings will be relentless for Scottie.

Go Judy go! (or rather..stay Judy stay (in jail))

[KittyWampus]

10. Can't Believe Kurtz Has Done This Piece. Pigs Must Be Flying

[jrthin]

11. NYTimes will stand on

principle until they are fined, daily. The argument the NYT makes, they are standing up for journalistic principle, is disingenious. They were not named in the case, as was Times magazine. The magazine was being fined daily, therefore the rubber met the road. The NYT didn't have to put its money where its mouth is, so they can pontificate up a storm. It's meaningless.

[depakid]

15. The fact that they Times didn't fire her

a long time ago is an utter disgrace- maybe that's why they're being disingenuous here....

[iam]

12. Miller is protecting the criminal

not the whislteblower fingering the criminal. Joe Wilson is the whislteblower here, Miller was not asked who Joe Wilson was. Imagine a thief who confesses a crime to a reporter, the reporter is them ordered to testify in court as to the ID of the thief. Can the reporter refuse without penalty? Of course not, they would be jailed in contempt of court unless they answered the question of who committed the crime. Judy Miller is an accomplice to an act of treason.

[gratuitous]

13. Back in the bad old days of the cold war

There were folks called "Kremlinologists," who sussed through official releases from the Soviet Union, watched who was standing where during parades through Red Square, noted whose name was mentioned prominently and whose name was moving down the list. Assuming that the Soviets were lying (a pretty valid assumption usually) in just about every factual matter, Kremlinologists tried to tease out the real meanings and the real story through subtle clues, including those mentioned above.

I think the Rove Affair is very similar. There are a handful of people who have the whole story -- Karl Rove, Bob Novak, perhaps Judy Miller. And a lot of people with parts of the story (maybe even major parts), in which category I would put most of the Washington presstitutes. I think there are some very deep waters here, and what's on the surface doesn't always give a true picture of what lies beneath.

There's a lot of public guesswork going on, and people are anxious to look like they know more than they do because it makes them look more like insiders. This story is unfolding rather slowly; it took two full years just to get to this point. But a little public force (letters to the editor, calls in to radio and television programs) can keep it moving.