Argument: Should Judith Miller Do Time? Free Press versus License to Lie

[autorank]

Judith Miller, superstar New York Times reporter, is about to be jailed for contempt of court. Prosecutor Fitzgerald of the Plame leak probe asked Miller to talk. He wants her to name the White House source who leaked Plame's name and CIA association.

Some argue that this will chill First Amendment rights and a free press by forcing reporters to name sources. Others like me, think she should do time for her lies about WMD prior to the Iraq war (an irrational & vindictive position that it's hard to argue). She used Chalabi and pushed hard for the notion that Iraq had WMD. Coming from the Times, this aided immeasurably the Bush war rationale. She is, therefore, one of the authors of our current misery.

Then, it occurred to me, she should do time and there is a very good reason: SHE'S NOT A JOURNALIST, SHE'S A PROPAGANDIST!!!

She engaged in single source journalism on an extremely important question and then, with NYT complicity, hammered hard for the patently false WMD claim. Would a real journalist push for such a flimsy story? No. But, would a propagandist for the Bush regime do this. YES indeed.

Therefore, Miller should go to jail as she conspicuously lacks the status of a journalist since she behaved as a propagandist.

This takes care of the 1st Amendment, lets the real reporter go because he's a real journalist, and puts this arrogant woman in a position where she's accountable for her wrong doing.

[AlCzervik]

1. i'm sorry---- "superstar New York Times" Whaaaaaa?

i would like to see her flogged for her "reporting" in the run up to the war, she fucking printed talking points from Chalabi and for that she sould never ever be considered a journalist ever again. She is no different than Jeff Gannon imo.

[autorank]

2. I'm sure that could be arranged...LOL

:hi:

[lenidog]

3. When you starting playing logic and word games like that

they have a nasty tendency to come back and bite you in the ass. That is why we shouldn't play them because what we consider journalism one day may be considered propaganda the other day.

[autorank]

6. Well, maybe I'm just trying to rationalize my basic desire to see

her "recognized appropriately" for the death and destruction she so skillfully supported.

[WatchWhatISay]

4. She should do time for just being a BushHo in general

But not for not disclosing her source.

[blogslut]

5. No

I don't think Ms Miller should do time, regardless of her politics.

My question is WHERE THE HELL IS THE SUBPOENA FOR ROBERT NOVAK?

[shraby]

7. She is NOT refusing to disclose her source,

she is covering up a crime. A crime that is tantamount to treason.

There is a big difference..if a reporter knows about a bank robbery before it happens then writes an exclusive about the bank robbery and refuses to give the source of the story, that reporter is not protecting a source, that reporter is complicit. Instead of writing an exclusive story, the reporter should have notified the police that there was going to be a bank robbery.

[autorank]

8. Right!

I want a video of the "perp walk."

[autorank]

17. Haven't you heard, Novak talked! What a weasel. He bent over and

picked up the soap, so to speak. What a guy! What a reporter! What an asshole!

[sharonking21]

9. Nope

As distasteful as it may be, given the recent performance of the media, and the performance of two of the involved parties (hold nose):puke:, we have to draw a line here and stick up for Freedom of the Press. Otherwise it will later come back and bite US on the ass. Same principle as ACLU defending some right-wing nut whose constitutional rights have been violated.

[BillZBubb]

10. She should do time.

She has evidence relevant to a felony, perhaps even treason. There is no shield for that.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. Yes, it's a rationalization

even if it's a damn fine one. I'd love to see her take a hard fall because you're right, she wasn't a journalist, she was indeed a full-fledged propagandist.

Unfortunately she was technically acting as a journalist. Working for the New York Times leaves no question about that. If the world was right, she wouldn't go to jail for not identifying her source, but the New York Times would fire her ass and and then issue an apology, not for her, but for the New York Times itself and what a miserable, Republican-cowering disgrace to journalism it has become, of which publishing Miller represents only one bad aspect. If anybody should have stood up to the right wing takeover these past ten years it is the Times.

That won't happen. The Times is unrepentant, and worse is that Judith Miller will probably come out of this as some kind of hero to her fellow excuses for journalists.

What we're left with is hoping someone gets convicted for a crime they didn't commit to atone for one they did. That's wrong and we know it, even if it would feel so good. So, that was a really good try, and accurate, but no. The best we can do is keep her name hilighted as representative of what a cowardly betrayal to journalism and America the New York Times has become.

[autorank]

12. I think I've got MPPD-Multiple Personality Poster Disorder

Well, OK, challenge me with logic and a smattering of flattery and I'll come to my senses...on my line of argument. Judging "real" versus "faux" reporters would be the perfect rationale for all sorts of *co mischief. However, if Fitzgerald went into court and could show a pattern of rewards and payoffs for the NYT, Miller or both as a result of her PR efforts, then the argument would be rock solid. In that case, the NYT would have been operated as something other than a news organization and Miller as something other than a journalist.

I will fall back on the more cogent argument offered by Fitzgerald and poster "Shraby," which states that being complicit to a crime causes the journalist to forgo his or her privilege. There are challenges to this that will be heard and decided but it does, at least, give me some cover for my desire to see at least the "perp walk."

Your advice is excellent:

"The best we can do is keep her name hi lighted as representative of what a cowardly betrayal to journalism and America the New York Times has become."

[MrPrax]

13. Does The Source Matter?

I love free speech !!! and it should be fully protected

Free press©, pr0n, advertising all seem to be 'free riders' best understood, not under the natural right args of an informed electorate necessary for a free society, but more under the heading of 'restraint of trade' free market rationale imho...

But Miller et. al. are not exactly refusing to name sources because the source is a 'whistleblower', or the source has direct knowledge of 'high crimes and misdeamors', but the 'story' was politically motiviated as is the source.

This WAS a calculated leak to discredit a critic of the Administration? That to me is the clincher and as such really doesn't protect the so-called journalists in charge. If anything, the MSM wants to wrap all this rotten fish in their newspapers as a 'free press' issue, when in fact, the owners of the Papers are as guilty--

These laws were originally strengthened because of the so-called 'risks' posed by the original Covert Action Bulletin and people like Philip Agee who were trying to expose illegality in high places.

I hope she rots in prison BTW

[demgrrrll]

14. I think this Judith Miller issue is the shiny object that they are holding

up to distract us from the real issue. The real issue, in my opinion, is who leaked the information. If they go off on a free speech Judith Miller tangent the real culprit will get to step out of the spotlight.
Same as it ever was..look over here look over here...

[autorank]

16. This could be fascinating...and poetic justice.

Fitzgerald has a rep as a hard charger. He really wants something Miller has and he's willing to wait a bit to get it. I'm very curious. I know that there is speculation that Fitzgerald is taking a dive. But the alternative is more believable from his background. So what's he got that's so big he's willing to wait to get information from Miller?

This may also be his cover for some other investigation. The last non-DC lawyer to play here was Ginsburg. The local elite mocked him but he was much smarter that the DC regulars and hogged all the press whenever he wanted. I suspect that Fitzgerald is a big boy from a big town who has come to work for a while in a small town. He may just surprise us all.

Should the hack Miller have the goods on the political hacks in the WH and be forced to reveal it, this would be true poetic justice.

[raysr]

15. Do time with

Charlie! (Manson)