Sulzberger Co-Authors 'New York Times' Op-Ed on Plame/Novak Case

By: E&P Staff Two extraordinary stories on the Valerie Plame/Robert Novak legal case appeared in the Sunday edition of The New York Times. One suggested that the mysterious Novak has, in fact, testified before a grand jury. The other piece, perhaps unprecedented, was co-authored by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper's publisher, and Russell T. Lewis, chief executive of The New York Times Company.

The Sulzberger/Lewis op-ed, titled "The Promise of the First Amedment," refers to embattled reporter Judith Miller with the familiar "Judy." It notes that "unless an appeals court reverses last week's contempt conviction," she will "soon be sent to prison." The authors add that if the government succeeds in obtaining the phone records of Miller and another Times reporter, "many of their sources, even those having nothing to do with these two government investigations, will become known."

But as concerned as they are with Miller's loss of liberty, "there are even bigger issues at stake for us all," they write. "The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information, particularly information about the government, are cut off."

The solution? "To reverse this trend," they explain, "to give meaning to the guarantees of the First Amendment and to thereby strengthen our democracy, it is now time for Congress to follow the lead of the states and enact a federal shield law for journalists. Without one, reporters like Judy Miller may be imprisoned. More important, the public will be in the dark about the actions of its elected and appointed government officials. That is not what our nation's founders had in mind."

Meanwhile, in the paper's news pages today, a story by Times reporter Adam Liptak summarizes the case, calling Novak's role in the investigation "a continuing mystery," and noting that unlike the other five journalists involved in the case he is the only one who has refused to say whether "he is cooperating."

But Liptak adds, "the available facts suggest he may have testified. Had he refused, his defiance would most likely have been followed by a public hearing for contempt of court like those held for other journalists."

Liptak also sketches scenarios under which "many court decisions, including the Supreme Court's only direct pronouncement on the subject, appear to say that (the special prosecutor) is entitled to force Mr. Novak and other journalists to tell him who their sources were."