By: E&P Staff
More on Judy Miller, cartoon chicanery, and the suppression of Hiroshima footage:
Every day, I read and enjoy Wiley Miller’s Non Sequitur, and I view him as one of America’s greatest wits — imbued with creative, mind-expanding, lively opinions. That does not make him entitled to his own facts.
I haven’t seen or signed one of his contracts. Perhaps they contain provisions for non-alteration, of the nature he describes. If so, bully for him, but most contracts don’t. The last time I saw a Garry Trudeau contract, about six years ago, it didn’t. And while there are some syndicated columnists that provide cut lines, they’re by far in the minority. If he can provide an example of a David Broder or Ellen Goodman or William F. Buckley or Froma Harrop or E.J. Dionne or Georgie Anne Geyer column that contains such cut lines, he should present it.
If I were the editors of E&P, I wouldn’t be holding space for the examples. They don’t exist. These columnists and their syndicates trust their local editors, and for the most part the trust is well placed.
The purpose of copyright, and thank God for its existence, is to protect creators from having their material published without permission or payment. Anything beyond that is part of an individual contract.
Kansas City, Mo.
The nuclear bomb-fest at E&P has been a little one-sided, hasn’t it? Who has seen film footage of Manila after the Japanese were through with it? Same number dead, more or less. But you don’t see tendentious books and documentary films and magazine articles about that. Why not?
Re: Writers Group Won’t Give Judith Miller ‘Conscience in Media’ Award After All
Hypocrisy at its best. I take the American Society of Journalists and Authors to mean that they will only condone disclosing confidential sources in Republican administrations. In other words, as CaptainsQuartersblog.com so correctly points out:
“If a ‘source’ reveals information about people the media dislikes, then the source deserves protection and the journalist should have a legal shield against subpoenas. If the ‘source’ provides information that the media finds inconvenient for their predetermined narrative, then any journalist protecting that source deserves only scorn from her colleagues.”
Antonio D. Pimenta, CPA
Good for the Journalists, but Miller never should have been considered for any award by honorable people! Why not give the award to Scott Ritter? He convinced me that Saddam was no threat whatsoever to America, months before the atrocities that began with “Shock and Awe”.
Lynn Haven, Florida
Ed’s Note: According to this Time.com interview, Scott Ritter was the UN’s top weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, when he resigned claiming President Clinton was too easy on Saddam. Now he says the dictator didn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that trying to oust Saddam was “extremely dangerous.”
So it would seem there are journalists still operating, and there are people in journalism, who, like me, are sick of people like Ms. Miller prostituting themselves to the radical Republican Neo-Cons at the cost of our Democracy.
And thank you to Ms. Bartholomew for saying what many on the left blogistan have been screaming for years: Why protect a source that lies to you to manipulate the news and public opinion? Why indeed, Ms. Miller?
A tip o’ the hat to the ASJA for doing the right thing. I look forward to more of these acts of sense when it comes to dealing with the Bush administration.
El Cajon, Calif.
Ed’s Note: This is the first time we’ve heard distinct political factions within the blogosphere referred to as a “blogistan,” but we like the term. Send your thoughts to firstname.lastname@example.org.