Judith Miller -- My Hero

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been in jail for nearly two weeks now for refusing to reveal her confidential source to a grand jury. The Karl Rove story is headline news all over the country, if not the world, and part of that story is about two journalists involved, and their two media organizations.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper also refused to reveal his source to federal prosecutors. But his editor, Norman Perlstine, decided to turn over Cooper's original e-mail and his notes, thereby giving up the source, who turned out to be presidential advisor Karl Rove. Still, to Cooper's credit, Cooper held fast to his refusal to testify until he got permission from Rove in writing to testify to the grand jury as to his identity.

On "Meet the Press" this morning, Cooper told NBC's Tim Russert that Perlstine had a tough decision that he put a lot of thought into but that Cooper disagreed and that it was a disagreement between individuals. Very charitable, I thought. I doubt that I could be that politically correct if I were to speak about my boss betraying me and everything I and supposedly he believed in as journalists and editors. I hope never to have to find out.

As an aside, on CBS' "Face the Nation" this morning, host Bob Schieffer ended it with the editorial comment that the White House's investigation as to who leaked the information that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative should have never gotten to the point of naming a special prosecutor, which has cost taxpayers millions of dollars. It should have remained in-house, he said; President Bush should have called together his top staffers and told them he wanted to know the identity of the leaker by the end of the day. Period. Hear, hear, Bob Schieffer!

Matt Cooper is testifying before Congress in support of federal shield legislation that would give protection to whistleblowers and confidential sources to members of the press. Miller would no doubt love to do that too, but it's a little tough to do from a jail cell.

I always thought when a reporter was sent to jail for refusing to reveal a source that it was punitive. But I learned through the federal court papers on this case that it's not supposed to be punitive but coercive. It's supposed to convince the reporter to give up their source and testify in compliance with a subpoena, which is the reason for the time being limited to the term of the grand jury, not to exceed 18 months. District Court Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan denied Miller's motion to reconsider the order because she (supposedly) failed to make the case that "there is no realistic possibility that confinement would be effective in obtaining Miller's compliance."

Also in those court papers, in the "Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Judith Miller's Motion for Reconsideration," about 3/4 down the page under II B, it says, "Much of what appears to motivate Miller to commit contempt is the misguided reinforcement from others (specifically including her publisher) that placing herself above the law can be condoned...."

Schieffer says in a column on the subject, "What I find most offensive is this government claim that Judy Miller considered herself above the law. If that were true, she would have tried to escape. She recognized the authority of the court and went to jail just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and other Americans before her went to jail when they thought a law was wrong."

In my own career as a journalist, which dates back to 1984, I was confronted early on by the seriousness of the decision to keep my sources confidential. I was writing a column on advertising for the Arizona Business Gazette in Phoenix and one of the local radio stations had conducted a survey on opinions of their station, which they presumably hoped to make public. The responses were so negative that they kept it as an internal document. But I got a call one day from a source telling me about it and asking me if I'd like a copy of it. Well, of course! It was juicy and relevant to what I wrote about. My source made me promise not to reveal his or her name and I, of course, agreed. I got a copy of the survey and responses from the source and called the station's general manager for comment. He was livid and told me he would sue me if I ran anything about it. He accused me of stealing it. He was powerful enough to possibly follow through with this threat so I didn't take it lightly. I decided on the spot and knew deep in my soul that I would go to jail rather than reveal my source. I ran the piece and never heard a word from the station.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein kept the identity of "Deep Throat" to themselves for 33 years. They didn't even tell their spouses at the time, both of whom are now ex-spouses, which may be the ultimate manifestation of source protection. Only after Mark Felt's family decided they wanted to benefit from his "help" in the Watergate scandal and went public with Felt's identity did Woodward confirm it.

The irony in the Judy Miller situation is that she never wrote the story that this case is all about. Still, she sits in jail while the court hopes to coerce her to testify. We can only hope, for the sake of a free press, that other journalists would have Judy Miller's courage. And, most of all, that Congress quickly passes a federal shield law. Judith Miller, from one journalist, please hang in there, for all of us. And to both her and her courageous editors at the New York Times who have consistently stood behind her and the 1st Amendment, thank you, thank you, thank you!



**Note: Registration required for the Sydney article, the New York Times and the Washington Post.