Editorials Back Reporters in Plame Case, Many Endorse Shield Laws

By: E&P Staff On Wednesday night and Thursday morning, E&P will compile a sample of editorials from around the country responding to the latest developments in the Plame case, including the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

***
The Washington Post: "The jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller yesterday in an attempt to force her to testify about a source is a damaging blow to the press's ability to do its job?.Commitments of confidentiality by journalists to their sources will have little value if they can be invalidated by waivers obtained by prosecutors or demanded by senior government officials from their subordinates. In such cases, journalists are obligated to protect their sources even if the law is against them. Indeed, reporters have been willing to face jail to protect confidential sources for decades; few have been regarded by the public as criminals.

"For these reasons, the Miller case should make plain that the legal authority that Mr. Fitzgerald relies on must change. Almost all states recognize some form of privilege for reporters, either an absolute privilege or a qualified one. Federal law, which recognizes no privilege in the grand jury setting, is the outlier. Congress has before it bipartisan legislation to provide an appropriate shield. Post officials have lobbied in favor of this legislation, and The Post, along with other media organizations, filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Miller case.

"In situations in which solemn professional obligations require silence, legislators or the courts have relieved people of the burden of choosing between honoring their word and going to jail. Congress needs to make that happen here, too."

***
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "There is no federal law that shields Judith Miller from being sent to jail for refusing to disclose the identity of her confidential sources. But there should be."

***

The New York Times: "This is a proud but awful moment for The New York Times and its employees. One of our reporters, Judith Miller, has decided to accept a jail sentence rather than testify before a grand jury about one of her confidential sources. Ms. Miller has taken a path that will be lonely and painful for her and her family and friends. We wish she did not have to choose it, but we are certain she did the right thing.

"She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.

"Some people - including, sadly, some of our colleagues in the news media - have mistakenly assumed that a reporter and a news organization place themselves above the law by rejecting a court order to testify. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...

"By accepting her sentence, Ms. Miller bowed to the authority of the court. But she acted in the great tradition of civil disobedience that began with this nation's founding...

"To be frank, this is far from an ideal case. We would not have wanted our reporter to give up her liberty over a situation whose details are so complicated and muddy. But history is very seldom kind enough to provide the ideal venue for a principled stand."

***

USA Today (column by editor Ken Paulson): "This past weekend, Americans across this nation watched as fireworks lit up the sky, reminding us of the glorious events of July 4, 1776. Though most people equate those fireworks with freedom, they're also a reminder that the Declaration of Independence signaled a stand against corrupt and overbearing government. Government officials aren't always the good guys.

"Legislatures in 31 states have recognized that, shoring up the watchdog role of journalists with shield laws. A federal shield law is now before Congress. Ensuring that a free press can protect its sources is not only good for news organizations. It's also good for democracy."

***

North County Times (Calif.): "Whether you like us or not, journalists provide the public with an invaluable service. It's why the Founding Fathers firmly ensconced the freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: to protect the common good by serving as an independent check on the government. Every state but one has adopted shield laws that grant privileges for reporters similar to those enjoyed by clergy, lawyers and doctors--in other words, enabling journalists to keep secrets, so long as they don't infringe upon other constitutionally protected rights. But no such federal protection exists, and it's no coincidence that the recent rash of reporter prosecutions have come in federal courts.

"Though anonymous sources must be used sparingly, in some cases they are vitally necessary. Without Woodward and Bernstein's promise to Mark Felt, aka 'Deep Throat,' we might never have learned of the Watergate conspiracy that ultimately forced President Richard Nixon to resign."