”A panel of nine
celebrated experts in the field of journalism, crowded around
a too-small table, explored the implications of the plight of
Judy Miller as it relates to the First Amendmen.
Spirited, goaded by firm
ideals and agendas, the panel, led by Danny Schechter of mediachannel.org and Globalvision, was hard to
moderate, vigorously disagreeing throughout though, toward
the end of the evening, we agreed, both audience and panel,
that a national shield law is sorely needed.
The truth is scary,
especially these days as the true nature of the mendacracy
(rule by lies) becomes barer and barer each day. [Recall that
when Plame's "outing" first occurred, both Rove and
Bush lied: Rove, that he knew nothing; and Bush, that he
would fire whoever was guilty].
The panel explored every
aspect of the issues to a point where every observation rang
true until the next person argued, with equal credibility,
its inverse. What is this backbone of journalism, the First
Amendment? Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy.
As for Miller, jailed for
four months for refusing to divulge sources of a story she
never even wrote, her civil case is due to become a criminal
one in October. Europe has called for her release, calling
the imprisonment "a dark day for America."
Donna Lieberman, head of the
New York CLU, said that the press is used to taking a beating
during wartime, but the Iraq war is "invented."
Mainly independent reporters are absorbing the blows: being
harassed, intimidated, their videotapes confiscated and
cameras smashed. The mainstream press reacts with as little
spine as does the Democratic Party to the ream of ethical
violations expanding each day while they watch the
Spinmeisters and marvel helplessly.
There is a shield law in New
York state and forty-eight others, Maine excluded; its
section 79H ensures professional reporters privacy for their
confidential sources. Lieberman expressed admiration for
Miller's courage, despite her politics. "We have to
protect her rights," she said.
At that point Danny
Schechter quoted one of his readers that the only thing
Miller deserves is execution for her biased prewar,
front-page articles in the New York Times insisting on the
presence of abundant WMD in Iraq.
The widely published Russ
Baker remarked that the Times should give out more
information about this nadir of Miller's existence (and
journalism's). "We don't know what happened," he
said.
"Great journalists ask
questions others don't and won't," added Michael Wolff
of Vanity Fair, formerly a writer for New York magazine.
"Forget Judy Miller," he said. "As he [Bush]
gets older, everyone else gets dumber."
"What is the primary
function of a news organization? To protect sources?" he
asked. "It's to tell a story to readers. Times Matt
Cooper had a major story he could have told two years ago. If
he had, Bush might have been defeated and Rove fired. . . .
What good are Time and the New York Times if they don't tell
us the news that they have?"
Wolff thought it unlikely
that Miller's silence was protecting Plame rather than
herself. Did she pass the information? There is a big piece
of the story she didn't write about.
Globalvision’s Rory
O'Connor, noted that Miller had been imprisoned for "one
of the few journalistic crimes she didn't commit," and
we must support her the way the ACLU defended Nazi marchers
through Skokie, Illinois, a few years ago.
Russ Baker noted that we may
be looking at a scam far bigger than Watergate. "We need
to sort these things out," he said. If a confidential
source lies, you can burn it. . . . No one knows what the
facts are." Michael Harris of Talkers Magazine said that
we need to separate fact from fiction—there is urgent
need for media criticism. "We're in danger of losing our
freedoms. . . .The New York Times and others let us
down."
Lauding Russ Baker's reports
on Miller, he added that "the first aim of media is to
tell the story, not protect the source.. . . . We can't pick
and choose who merits protection." From a political
point of view, Miller is protecting those who don't deserve
protection.
But how can we pick and
choose whom to protect? The NCLU’s Donna Liebernman
asked. Is it ok that Woodward and Bernstein's source was
protected but Judy Miller's isn't?
Michael Wolff said that it
is a crime to protect a source that misleads you. Then he
verbalized one of the evening's top ironies: "What
happens when the source becomes the story?" Soon after,
Ron Bienstock, an entertainment attorney who has frequent
handled First Amendmen cases, voiced the paradox journalists
face: "it's always about access--if they reveal, they
won't get access; if they don't, they'll have it."
"There are too many
issues," was Russ Baker's appropriate segue. Reporters
are also citizens. "Are Judy Miller's sources made up? .
. . She shouldn't go to jail, but she and the New York Times
should clarify the situation."
One relevant question was:
if Miller witnessed a crime, is she not legally obligated to
report it? An interesting perspective was supplied by Russ
Baker: that all the information a reporter has is not
reported and it can be assembled into any number of stories
that in fact are never written but could be, from a variety
of perspectives.
The issue/problem of an
undereducated public was also brought up. "The U.S.
public must be educated to become critical about the
media," said Harrison, "to understand the
difference between objective and subjective reporting and to
read many sources
Who will solve the problem
and tell the truth?" a rock and roll musician asked at
the end of the turbulent debate.
"It will be me,"
answered Michael Wolff.”