Steve Chapman On Why Miller Should Give Up Her Source

By: E&P Staff NEW YORK In recent days, as dozens of newspaper editorials and columnists rose up to defend Judith Miller of The New York Times and her decision to go to jail rather than give up a source, several journalists have argued against this position. Steve Chapman, syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, has been more vocal than most, and has also been oft-quoted by others.

Last night he sparred with Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, on Jim Lehrer?s NewsHour, in a segment hosted by Terence Smith. Here are some excerpts.

The first concerns Miller granting her source perpetual anonymity.

***

CHAPMAN: She may have given it, but I don't think she had any right to give it. I don't think she had any obligation to, and I don't think it was wise to do so. I think reporters should be able to promise their sources confidentiality in circumstances like this, but I don't think -- I think that that obligation ends where the law begins.

I don't think reporters have a right or a duty to violate the law or to violate valid court orders, which is what's happened here, and I think it's a terrible shame.


SMITH: You've written, Steve Chapman, that this is a case that the press doesn't deserve to win. What do you mean by that?

CHAPMAN: Look, we have a law against disclosing the names of undercover agents. Everybody agrees that's a good law. In this case it was violated. That's a serious federal felony, and I think any other citizen who was called to testify, having been witness to this crime, would consider it a normal obligation of citizenship to do so, and what we have here is reporters -- a reporter now -- who says she doesn't have that obligation.

***

CHAPMAN: What I'd like to point out here is that under the sort of shield laws that apply in most states, if there were such a law at the federal level, it would not excuse Miller from testifying because what's been established by the prosecutor in court in this case is that the information he's seeking is absolutely critical to the investigation and that there's no other way to get it. And under those circumstances, in almost every state, she would be compelled to testify.

BILL KELLER: I'm not arguing with that.

***

CHAPMAN: Well, look, these reporters went to court, federal court. They argued at the district level and at the appeals court level that there exists a constitutional protection for journalist sources, that there exists a common law privilege, and the courts unanimously said they do not, and yet, we've persisted in this case in saying that, despite what the courts tell you, that's what the law allows. It doesn't allow that. It shouldn't allow that, and I think we're making a huge mistake to pretend otherwise.

***

CHAPMAN: I think there should be a federal shield law that would limit subpoenas to journalists to cases where the information being sought is critical to the investigation and there's no other way to get it, and if we had a law like that, it would protect 98 percent of the confidential sources that journalists use, and it would not protect Judith Miller, I'm afraid.

***

CHAPMAN: I don't think Patrick Fitzgerald has gone to all this trouble to put Judy Miller in jail. I think what he's trying to do is find the person who broke this law and put him in jail, and I think that's exactly what he ought to be doing, whatever he has to do to get it.