The Jailing of Judith Miller

NY Times ^ | June 29, 2005 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

[metesky]

Ok, I found it:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the right of the press to protect criminals; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[jocon307]

"Novak revealed the name of his source to the prosecutor..."

Well, then why isn't the investigation over? What you say makes sense, it is congruent with the article's discussion about a "Martha Stewert prosecution". But if there was a crime committed, wasn't it by the leaker? So, if they know who that person is why hasn't the focus of the investigation turned to him or her?

[OESY]

Safire's subheading is: "Punishing a reporter for a crime that never was."

Boy, you sure wouldn't have known that if you had read only the New York Times before the 2004 election. Thank goodness for the Internet with its blogs and message boards, like FreeRepublic.com, which got the word out.

To paraphrase today's editorial in the Times on President Bush's Speech About Iraq,
"We did not expect Mr. Sulzberger would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this journalistic quagmire, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running their Get-Bush operation."

However, it does strike us as unfair for a single reporter to go to jail, while the seven layers, the minions, of editors who reviewed her work are free to continue to practice journalistic malfeasance to the detriment of (read, chilling effect on) public discourse and general knowledge.

[Alberta's Child]

The person who provided the information to Novak and the two reporters discussed here did not commit a crime -- since Plame was not a covert CIA operative at the time and has not been one for years.

However, that does not mean the reporters are off the hook -- because they refused to cooperate in what was still an active criminal investigation at the time they were called to testify.

[jocon307]

Finally, I think I understand this. Thank!

[sandydipper]

Reporters DO NOT have to divulge the idenity of their "source" - it has to do with freedom of the press. Get over it and move on.

[Smartaleck]

"I don't know what Miller and Cooper have to do with the Novak's story which revealed Wilson's wife's identity. I don't get it."

I'm with you. There has to be more to it. Why do they have un-named sources? Novak is the source. LOL

[wildbill]

The Times is hoist on their own petard. They lobbied for an independent prosecutor and investigation because they figured it would embarrass the Bush administration.

[Smartaleck]

Re: the Pew poll on the press/media.

How is it you can't turn on the TV these days without hearing about Bush's low poll numbers, the war is going badly according to public opinion......but nothing about the public thinks the media sucks?

[Inwoodian]

Safire is the type of pantywaist "conservative" that the MSM loves. Like Kristol and Tucker Carlson he can usually be counted on to stage a preemptive retreat when engaged by an America-hating Lib.

[TheeOhioInfidel]

Should lock up about 90% of all reporters and throw away the damn key.



But what happens when conservative journalists need confidential sources, say in the Terry Schiavo cover up, or in collecting dirt about our beloved judges, or our trade policy with China, or the profiteers of illegal aliens? Well, nothing will be exposed, because these journalists would have to reveal their sources.
Rolly said it best last night. Take away our property, take away the press, and take away our guns. Incrementally the govt. is plundering this country.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Perhaps the leaker(s) was as good of as source as Dan Rather..."

It would be tough to reveal a source that was "made up" to hurt Bush, yet I do think it's a good source, otherwise they would out him/her. I will laugh my ass off if it turns out to be a Democrat official.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com

[OKIEDOC]

Where is confidential sources covered in the constitution.

Confidential sources are a myth perpetrated by an elitists run a way press.

I believe that Stalin, Hitler and Mao also believed that confidential sources were great.

The Japanese used hooded confidential sources and executed the ones they exposed.

In France they were called collaborators.

Lots of people have been lined up and shot or imprisoned by finger pointing confidential hooded sources.

Everyone, no matter how painful it is for the accuser, deserves to confront their accusers.

Same with the court of public opinion.

What Dan Rather and his cabal did to Bush is just one of thousands of injustices that are taking place in America by so called unbiased reporters.


The Main Stream Press has made a mess of their house by blindly attaching it's self to a left wing bias.

These fourth, fifth and sixth columnists are using every means possible to undermine our sitting government, and take away our personal rights guaranteed under the constitution they purport to believe in.

A great majority of these so called unbiased reporters have also taken on the fight against Christians and American family traditions.

Reporters who lay down with dogs like George Soros and Howard Dean should expect to have a bad case of radical left wing fleas.

I supported Terri Shivo 100% but don't remember how a confidential source made any difference in her state sponsored murder.

[KC_for_Freedom]

And in defending Judith Miller, the NYT has just admitted that their criticism of Bush for the Valerie Plame "scandal" was pure BS.

Yes, this was a "liberal" attempt to get the Bush administration on this disclosure of an agent. Now that it turns out that other liberals will get hurt they are all for forgiving and forgetting. Not now. My suspecion is that soon we will learn that the source who revealed Plame's agency status will be another leftist, but whoever it is the story should come out. We are talking about a crime are we not?