WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Roldo on 'Plain Dealer' Intrigue, Woodward & Miller, Ghost Stories

By: Greg Mitchell Letters, we get letters, we gets lots and lot of letters. The problem is, the "letters" section at this Web site is pretty much buried up there in the site index (this will probably come as a surprise to most of you reading this).

When we launch our new blog in September, publishing a lot of feedback will no longer be any problem. Until then, or until we are able to set up a more prominent letters feature right here on the home page, we will carry a daily entry in this spot, called, variously, "MONDAY's LETTERS," "TUESDAY's LETTERS" and so.

We will add letters as they come in, at the top, so check back every few hours, if you wish, for the latest update. Or, blog-like, you can respond to a letter you find here. Here's a start for Wednesday, most recent first, with many more to come.

***

Great work on covering the intricacies of this Judy Miller matter. Maybe it should be E&P that starts or suggests a place for the rest of us to make contributions to a Judy Miller Fund. I?m sure she?ll pull her paycheck and all that, but maybe we all owe her a bit of gratitude. A few dollars from here and few from there might add up to a sum that gives her the ability to do a few things on her dream list.

Lowell Forte

***

Well, the Plain Dealer did it again. Our monopoly daily apparently has invented a new form of reporting, or not -? avoidance journalism. The PD has, according to Editor Doug Clifton, "two stories of profound importance languish(ing) in our hands." The paper decided that it would remain silent on both stories in fear that reporters or others could go to jail if the pieces were published. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them," wrote Clifton.

What are the pieces about? What's swirling around the PD newsroom and among others is the thought that it has to do with the Nate Gray episode and names not made public who are possible targets of the government's case against local politicians and their friends. The Gray case ended in a mistrial, under unsettling circumstances, last week and the government will again try the case, next time in Akron. One juror, who had a prior association with a Cleveland politician, held out against 11.

Well, it's not hard to extrapolate there. What's the triumvirate that has ruled in Cleveland in the past decade or more? Answer: Former Mayor Michael White, Gray (twice best man at White's wedding), and Sam Miller, closest advisor of White and a top gun at Forest City Enterprises.

Here's the conclusion of The New York Times piece on this episode: "Mr. Clifton said he was surprised that there had been so little public reaction to his disclosure of 'something that newspapers typically don't reveal' -- that real live news had been stifled. I hope the public will be bothered by that." That suggests to me that Clifton wanted this news to be widely debated and made into an issue. He certainly didn't evade questions by either Editor & Publisher or the New York Times.

Maybe his motive was meant to counter Publisher Alex Machaskee who may have vetoed publication, along with the paper's lawyers. Reporters could go to jail but newspapers could be fined, something repugnant to Machaskee and his bosses.

That's pure speculation on my part but in so many cases of censorship and misfeasance in Machaskee's long history, he has been the culprit at the PD.

A number of Cleveland bloggers have begun picking away critically at the PD, so it's likely that the story may have some shelf life left to it.

Roldo Bartimole
Cleveland, OH

***

Hey Joe Strupp, was it a slow news day or were you stuck for an idea? As mentioned by Bob Woodward in offering to serve Judith Miller's jail time, no judge would allow this. Thus making it a shallow meaningless offer mainly for the purposes of selling his book, which he tried to mention in his next breath.

David J. Horchak
Circulation Director
The Herald/The Herald Press
New Britain, CT

***

Bob Woodward has lost any shred of credibility for me. Since when, in this country, can a person do jail time for a friend? If this was standard practice, I guarantee, Woodward would have never in a million years uttered those words. Judy Miller is in jail because of Judy Miller.

The point is that journalists do not have any special confidentiality privileges under the law, especially to protect a felony. Who is kidding who? There is no journalistic integrity these days. Woodward affirmed that in his ignorant statement.

Linda Ross

***

About your story on Gallup finding one in three Americans believe in ghosts: I don't believe in ghosts, but I am afraid of them!

Don Hart

***

Take a poll of those under the age of 40 and I?ll think you?ll find more of them believing in ghosts than believe Social Security will be there for them when they retire! Or, maybe you should just take a poll amongst all the ghosts you can interview?.maybe they can help the media realize we need to do something about Social Security reform!

Mark Deutschle

***

Now Bob Woodward has offered, on behalf of journalists everywhere, to help Ms. Miller serve her jail time because, "[maintaining the confidentiality of sources is] that important
to our business." Why would journalists want to continue to play into the hands of these politicians? They're being used and yet in this case they seem to be fighting for the right to be used.

Without question there should be a presumption of confidentiality afforded members of the press. But like the First Amendment itself, this presumption should not be absolute. And this case, along with the Dan Rather/Bush national guard records fiasco, are situations where the press should be willingly revealing their sources.

The major justification for confidentiality is that the public is served best when people with knowledge of crimes or malfeasance can reveal that to the press without the fear of retaliation. There is no public interest in knowing the identity of a CIA operative that outweighs the public interest in knowing who disclosed that information. And in this situation the source used the press to damage national security and relied on the presumption of confidentiality to get away with it. The public is best served by revealing the source or sources, not by keeping quiet.

Ben Lamborn
Levant, ME