NYT: Defender of the Powerful
I'm flummoxed by the NYT's posture on Judy Miller. It is a sad example of the way a major media organization views its role in our society.
Their editorial says,
Isn't she a REPORTER? Isn't her job to get information AND REPORT IT??? It absolutely ought to be her job to coerce and cajole all of her sources into giving her information and the permission to use it. That's what reporters do. It is the source's responsibility to decide whether or not to cooperate.
This "well, she promised confidentiality once and so then she can't ever raise the issue again" posture is ridiculous. Sources are not some sort of judgment-impaired persons who need a guardian to watch out for their best interests, or to make judgments for them. A reporter who saw her duty as being to her readers instead of to her friends in power would have been checking with her source every other day, saying, "Are you sure I can't use this?"
In this particular case, the source was the Chief of Staff to the Vice-President of the United States. Given the sort of judgments made every day by such a person, I think it reasonable that he could decide for himself how important preserving confidentiality was. I'm sure Mr. Libby could have rigorously defended his own interests, should Ms. Miller have decided to be a pestering, coercive nuisance.
This is one of our nation's most media-saavy and secretive administrations. For a major news organization to cede the right to bring constant pressure and even coercion upon them in the interest of reporting the truth is ridiculous. If the administration wants to keep secrets, it should be the reporter's job to make that uncomfortable.
Do the New York Times editors really expect me to believe that the chief aide to Dick "Go f*** yourself" Cheney is so sensitive and thin-skinned that a call from a reporter, even one in jail, would have even registered as a slight pressure, much less coercion, to Mr. Libby?
Obviously, reporting on government requires such awkward conventions as "background," and confidential sources. But a reporter's instinct should be to blab far and wide. Indeed, the only nobility in the whole going-to-jail routine is that the reporter is going to jail even though they themselves want to talk. If the reporter isn't doing everything she can to get the truth revealed, short of breaking her promise, she is merely a co-conspirator, not a bold defender of the First Amendment. If her editors are excusing and rationalizing such behavior, well...one hopes there are compromising photographs involved.
I am embarrassed for the once-great Grey Lady.
Their editorial says,
Why, then, did she agree to testify yesterday? Could Ms. Miller have gotten the permission earlier? Why didn't she just pick up the phone and ask?Hello? What?
When a journalist guarantees confidentiality, it means that he or she is willing to go to jail rather than disclose the source's identity. We also believe it means that the journalist will not try to coerce the source into granting a waiver to that promise - even if her back is against the wall.
Isn't she a REPORTER? Isn't her job to get information AND REPORT IT??? It absolutely ought to be her job to coerce and cajole all of her sources into giving her information and the permission to use it. That's what reporters do. It is the source's responsibility to decide whether or not to cooperate.
This "well, she promised confidentiality once and so then she can't ever raise the issue again" posture is ridiculous. Sources are not some sort of judgment-impaired persons who need a guardian to watch out for their best interests, or to make judgments for them. A reporter who saw her duty as being to her readers instead of to her friends in power would have been checking with her source every other day, saying, "Are you sure I can't use this?"
In this particular case, the source was the Chief of Staff to the Vice-President of the United States. Given the sort of judgments made every day by such a person, I think it reasonable that he could decide for himself how important preserving confidentiality was. I'm sure Mr. Libby could have rigorously defended his own interests, should Ms. Miller have decided to be a pestering, coercive nuisance.
This is one of our nation's most media-saavy and secretive administrations. For a major news organization to cede the right to bring constant pressure and even coercion upon them in the interest of reporting the truth is ridiculous. If the administration wants to keep secrets, it should be the reporter's job to make that uncomfortable.
Do the New York Times editors really expect me to believe that the chief aide to Dick "Go f*** yourself" Cheney is so sensitive and thin-skinned that a call from a reporter, even one in jail, would have even registered as a slight pressure, much less coercion, to Mr. Libby?
Obviously, reporting on government requires such awkward conventions as "background," and confidential sources. But a reporter's instinct should be to blab far and wide. Indeed, the only nobility in the whole going-to-jail routine is that the reporter is going to jail even though they themselves want to talk. If the reporter isn't doing everything she can to get the truth revealed, short of breaking her promise, she is merely a co-conspirator, not a bold defender of the First Amendment. If her editors are excusing and rationalizing such behavior, well...one hopes there are compromising photographs involved.
I am embarrassed for the once-great Grey Lady.
posted by Paul at 8:45 AM |
|
email this
