Two SPJ Chapters Criticize Group's Award to Miller

By: E&P Staff Two chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists are now raising questions about the organization awarding a First Amendment prize to New York Times reporter Judith Miller at its recent convention in Las Vegas. That event in mid-October, attended by Miller, drew a lot of coverage but little public dissent from within the group at the time.

SPJ's Northern California and Mid-Florida Pro chapters now have criticized the Miller award in an open letter written by Peter Y. Sussman, a former president of the Northern California group, and Linda Jue, current vice president. "We hope to set the record straight on behalf of conscientious journalists around the country who support journalists' First Amendment responsibilities but are deeply troubled by Miller's earlier unprofessional conduct and SPJ's failure to fully apply its own Code of Ethics to this case," they wrote.

They observed that while SPJ was attempting to laud journalists' attempts to protect their sources, "in this case, the message has been sullied by the ethical misdeeds of the messenger. ... We deplore the careless and deceptive use of confidential sources, as exemplified in Judith Miller's reporting. We urge journalists to hold each other accountable before the government claims even more sweeping rights to interfere in the editorial process, eroding still further this country's noble ideal of a free press."

Irwin Gratz, immediate past president of SPJ who oversaw the controversial Miller awarding at the group's recent convention, welcomed the criticism. But he took issue with one complaint.

"We would take exception to it when they say that SPJ chose to put its support of a journalists' shield law above its ethical responsibility," he told E&P. "I think all we were doing was not commenting on Judy Miller's ethics, only her actions that amounted to extraordinary efforts in support of the First Amendment."

Gratz also did not find the objections of two SPJ chapters as any major problem for SPJ. "It happens from time to time, and we are big believers in the First Amendment," he said. "You are never going to get 100% consensus on any particular issue. We have some 50 or 60 chapters across the country."

Here is the text of the letter:

*

The New York Times has admitted putting its legal support for reporter Judith Miller above its responsibility to inform readers about an issue of pre-eminent national importance. Similarly, the Society of Professional Journ-alists, at its recent convention, chose to put its commendable support of a journalists' shield law above its ethical responsibility to "clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct."

We hope to set the record straight on behalf of conscientious journalists around the country who support journalists' First Amendment responsibilities but are deeply troubled by Miller's earlier unprofessional conduct and SPJ's failure to fully apply its own Code of Ethics to this case.

At its recent convention in Las Vegas, SPJ gave Miller its First Amendment Award and lauded her sacrifice in choosing to serve jail time in defense of a free press.

Journalists are ethically bound to keep promises to their sources, as Miller has done. Protecting journalists against government demands for information from sources who were promised confidentiality is a paramount professional obligation and a precondition of a free press. With its First Amendment Award to Miller, the Society intended to underline that message. Unfortunately, in this case, the message has been sullied by the ethical misdeeds of the messenger.

We deplore the careless and deceptive use of confidential sources, as exemplified in Judith Miller's reporting. We urge journalists to hold each other accountable before the government claims even more sweeping rights to interfere in the editorial process, eroding still further this country's noble ideal of a free press.

The press's watchdog role -- so vital to a functioning democracy - demands special attention when reporting on government. The SPJ Code of Ethics calls upon journalists to "be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable." Miller, by contrast, knowingly consented to an attempt to mislead the public by allowing her source, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to hide administration responsibility
for attacks on critic Joseph Wilson.

In an interview for a story that was never published, Miller granted a request from her source, Libby, to change his pre-agreed attribution from "senior administration official" to "former Hill staffer." The new designation was intentionally misleading.

The SPJ ethics code says that journalists should "always question sources' motives before promising anonymity" and that "the public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." Miller admitted that she assumed her source was trying to deceive the public with the misleading attribution -- and she gave her consent.

Judith Miller has been quoted in The New York Times as saying, "If your sources are wrong, you are wrong." That statement betrays a profound misunderstanding of the journalist's ethical obligation to "seek truth and report it." Journalists must, as the Code of Ethics words it, "test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error." The public is unable to question a source who hides behind anonymity. This places a heavy burden on the journalist to assure that the charges he or she is passing to the public are indeed credible. Miller failed that test.

Judith Miller's responsibility to her readers was amplified by the momentous consequences of the charges she reported. Her coverage of supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq helped the administration make its case for launching a military invasion. Many of Miller's prewar sources turned out to be unreliable witnesses and, worse, self-serving partisans using fabricated evidence. It is irresponsible to relay such grave but anonymous charges without an extra- ordinary effort to corroborate them by other means.

Miller's repeated reliance on the same suspect sources constituted a breakdown in reporting that was compounded by The Times' prominent display of her credulous reports, its hands-off editing of her dispatches and its failure to insist on multiple sources and rigorous checking.

Journalists have an ethical obligation to resist government or judicial coercion to identify sources who were promised anonymity. But if that obligation is to be credible, we must also willingly accept a responsibility to make good-faith efforts to rigorously verify and qualify all our reporting. Then the public can be assured that information from unidentified sources is not simply self-serving misinformation from people who, by virtue of their anonymity, cannot be held accountable for their words. Ethical journalists provide as much accurate identifying information as possible. And we are duty-bound to critique each other's adherence to strict professional standards.

We endorse the vital importance of shielding journalists'sources from government intrusion. Such a safeguard is essential to the press1 role as a government watchdog. At the same time, we invite vigorous public dialogue on appropriate uses of confidentiality in fulfilling this function. We also call upon our colleagues to adhere to SPJ's Code of Ethics, which protects the integrity of journalism while enhancing its quality.