Judith Miller has been subpoenaed in the Plame leak
Isn't that touching.
For the record, I think it's important for reporters and their employers to be willing to protect sources if they see fit. I also think they should be willing to take the consequences of that choice.
The Times has done this before. Last time it was to expose an administration who lied about a war that was killing our soldiers.
If they think that protecting one is equally worthy of civil disobedience, have at it.
In either case, there are few reporters who have been more consciously an active partner with their sources. Ms. Miller's work has tracked her work with the think tanks behind the war with stunning frequency. From her 'work' on the WMDs before the war to giving orders to the unit she was embedded in, she's been far more a partisan participant than a reporter.
Couldn't happen to a nicer girl, is what I'm getting at.
A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, was subpoenaed yesterday by a Washington grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a C.I.A. undercover officer to the syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.
The subpoena to Ms. Miller was only the most recent of a series issued to journalists in a politically sensitive inquiry that has on several occasions led investigators to question White House officials.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times, said the paper would move to quash the subpoena to Ms. Miller, issued at the behest of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor heading the investigation.
"We regret that the special prosecutor has chosen to issue a subpoena that seeks to compel Judy Miller to reveal her confidential sources," Mr. Sulzberger said. "Journalists should not have to face the prospect of imprisonment for doing nothing more than aggressively seeking to report on the government's actions. Such subpoenas make it less likely that sources will be willing to talk candidly with reporters and ultimately it is the public that suffers.''
Isn't that touching.
For the record, I think it's important for reporters and their employers to be willing to protect sources if they see fit. I also think they should be willing to take the consequences of that choice.
The Times has done this before. Last time it was to expose an administration who lied about a war that was killing our soldiers.
If they think that protecting one is equally worthy of civil disobedience, have at it.
In either case, there are few reporters who have been more consciously an active partner with their sources. Ms. Miller's work has tracked her work with the think tanks behind the war with stunning frequency. From her 'work' on the WMDs before the war to giving orders to the unit she was embedded in, she's been far more a partisan participant than a reporter.
Couldn't happen to a nicer girl, is what I'm getting at.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 09:54 am (UTC)who doesn't like Judi who also has secret to tell? How about the administration?
Plenty of dirts to dish out still between now till election. Even Bush expensive spin machine can't handle all of them at once.
Judith Miller is going down, and she better sits in jail soon.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 11:50 am (UTC)He, alone of them all, cannot claim he doesn't know who leaked the name.
The others can say they were approached, and offered something, but they refused, and don't know, though they suspect, what the offer was.
TK
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 02:30 pm (UTC)Information Collection Program
(...)
With some difficulty, I managed to steer Qanbar's attention to the memo he had sent to Congress, and to a list it contained of 108 news stories that, the INC said, included "product' supplied by its Information Collection Program. "Yes, this memo has become quite famous,' he said with a wry smile.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 05:36 pm (UTC)Mr. Novak is, of course, the gentleman who outed Ms. Plame.