Judith Miller goes free--and why there's still a problem

New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been freed from jail, having agreed to testify to the grand jury investigating the events surrounding the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press. Miller had been jailed for contempt of court after refusing to identify a confidential source. But she's been freed after a source - apparently it's Lewis "Scooter" Libby, VP Dick Cheney's chief of staff - lifted his confidentiality arrangement and agreed that she could discuss their conversations. So, a reporter gets out of jail-that's great, right?

Well, not so much.

It was back in early July that Miller was jailed by a US court for refusing to testify in an investigation into the unmasking of CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. As part of the grand jury hearings, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald successfully pressed the issue and got his way. Fitzgerald has been aggressively "investigating who in the Bush administration told the press Plame - the wife of former US ambassador who had criticised the president - was a CIA agent. Ms Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, had earlier criticized President Bush over evidence he had presented to justify the assault on Iraq. Mr Wilson later alleged that his wife's name was deliberately leaked in order to discredit him." (It turned out that the source was none other than Karl Rove himself.)

While Cooper went to jail, Time's Matt Cooper was let off the hook - supposedly - after he apparently "received a 'somewhat dramatic' message from his source telling him he was free to testify." In a disturbing move at the time, Cooper's bosses at Time had even given up Cooper's notes to the special prosecutor by that point.

(Here, by the way, is a useful overview and timeline of the affair, courtesy of the BBC. Also, see here for an AP report that also includes information on Robert Novak's shady role in all this.)

The consequences of these developments could be serious for American journalism. The pursuit of journalists to reveal confidential sources - combined with the lack of a federal shield law to protect journalists - is likely to place a "chilling effect" on robust media debate of contentious issues in the United States. The BBC quotes Bill Kovach of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, who "alleges that the case is part of a trend in which the government has sought to control the press's ability to cover its behaviour." States Kovach: "'There have been concerted efforts, especially by the Bush administration, to reduce the availability of information and to tone down the aggressiveness with which the press pursues it. . . . This is not just attributable to 9/11, but it appears to be a continuation of three decades of efforts.'"

Still, as I noted back in April, although part of the problem lies with the current administration, the press itself has to shoulder some of the blame. The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof reminded us about the pressures on many journalists to reveal their sources - not only Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, but also Jim Taricani, a less-well-know NBC television journalist, who was finally freed in April "after four months of house arrest for refusing to reveal his sources."

As Kristof pointed out, "the climate for freedom of the press in the U.S. feels more ominous than it has for decades." Now it would be great if there was some outpouring of public support for an embattled press - something like the groundswell of public outrage that greeted the FCC's 2003-2004 attempts to roll back media cross-ownership rules. But that hasn't happened. In fact, much of the public thinks the press a.) has too much freedom, and b.) abuses that freedom. Kristof noted some stunning poll results that I have commented on many times. E.g., the Pew Research Center's "Trends 2005" report, which shows "that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing in their daily newspapers, up from 16 percent two decades ago." Then there's the study by the National Opinion Research Center that has "measured public confidence in 13 institutions, including the press. All of the other institutions have generally retained a good measure of public respect, but confidence in the press has fallen sharply since 1990." And then there's the USA Today survey of 112,000 American high school students, which showed "that 32% of them believe that there is too much freedom of the press, versus 10% only who believe that there is not enough. Even worse, "no less than 36% would prefer that the media be subject to government authorization beforehand." And the results of that poll seemed in line with other recent studies of adult attitudes.

Of course, the press itself has to take much of blame for its dwindling credibility. But at the same time, that doesn't help. No matter how messed up our major media institutions are, and how poorly they serve the citizens, it's still much more dangerous when people give up on the media and accede to the principle of greater press restriction. And as for the First Amendment and the protection of the courts? Kristof correctly identifies just how flimsy these protections really are. He notes that while "Judges don't exactly decide cases based on public sentiment, . . . their decisions do reflect the values of their society. And in our society, public support for the news media has all but evaporated." And he reminds us: "The safety net for American journalism throughout history has been not so much the First Amendment - rather, it's been public approval of the role of the free press. Public approval is our life-support system, and it is now at risk."