J$P Instant Transcript! Eric Burns and the News Watch panel ponder the case of Judith Miller.

From Fox News Watch, July 23 2005:

ERIC BURNS [FOX NEWS]: The American Society of Journalists and Authors has recommended giving its annual Conscience in the Media Award to Judith Miller of the New York Times. But Ms Miller is in the clink, for refusing to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame case. And at least one member of that society is protesting that award, and listen to this woman's reasoning. She says this:

The first amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who [were her apparent sources], has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistle blowers.

In other words, the objection here, Jane, seems to be that she has, Judith Miller has, completely turned the meaning of protecting sources on its back, and therefore should not get any kind of award.

JANE HALL [THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY]: As I've thought about this case, I'm tending to agree with the objection to her, separate from her lousy reporting and wrongful reporting on the war in Iraq, which is a pretty big "except". I have begun to wonder. First of all, the New York Times and her going to jail has probably started open season, at least precedent, for other people to go after the media. Watergate was about a whistle blower who came forward on a criminal investigation that went all the way to the resignation of a president. I think there are distinctions to be made. The New York Times is taking the stance, we did it right, trust us. I disagree with that.

BURNS: And if the distinction were, Jim, that she had gotten this information--and perhaps she did, we don't know absolutely yet--but if she had gotten information not from a government source but from a private individual, then we wouldn't have this issue?

JIM PINKERTON [NEWSDAY]: Well, I mean I guess we--look, I find it crazy to say that because the source for the reporter is the government, that therefore you can blow the whistle on him. I mean, Mark Felt, who was most of Deep Throat--

HALL: The source was somebody who outed a CIA agent.

PINKERTON: --OK, the point is, if you play that game of this source is protected, that source is not protected, obviously nobody will be sure they're going to be protected. One thing about Judith Miller you can put in the bank: if you give her a story, she's going to protect it. Which is a lot more than you can say about a lot of reporters now, who would rather squeal than go to jail.

HALL: But what if the source frees you? Then, what point are you making there?

PINKERTON: But we don't know the source freed her. We don't know that.

HALL: We don't know that, but it's been reported that's the case.

CAL THOMAS [SYNDICATED COLUMNIST]: The New York Times has got itself with its knickers in a twist, to use the United Kingdom phrase on this. It is editorially now supporting Judith Miller, but some of its rationale has gone on to cheer leading here. I think they're caught in a conflict of interest. Yes, they want to praise the reporter and the supposed principles for which she stands, and that's arguable as well. But at the same time, at least in the latest editorial about her, they pulled an awful lot of punches in this. I will say, however, that I think Judith Miller has secured her career at the New York Times. There's no way she'll be fired now. She's gone to jail. If Jayson Blair had gone to jail first, he'd still be working there.

NEAL GABLER [MEDIA WRITER]: She does not deserve an award. She deserves the opprobrium of virtually everyone in the journalism business. Although, I hope she's cleared a place, if she does win this award, on the little toilet in the cell.

BURNS: In the cell, for the award, yes. Listen, we have seen the first of the effects, I think, of these decisions that have to do with Cooper and Miller, which is that the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a very fine newspaper in the Midwest, its editor has said that he has decided not to run two stories with, and these are his words, "profound importance for the Cleveland Plain Dealer audience", because they were based on leaked documents. Now one of those stories, Neal, has since gotten out in some other publication. But what about the notion now that newspapers might be thinking, we have to have whole different standards of reporting because of Miller and Cooper?

GABLER: I think that the editor of the Plain Dealer was grandstanding here, trying to prove that this is the effect of Miller and Cooper. Look, we live in an environment now--

BURNS: So that he could, in other words, try to say to people, here is the danger so you've got to protect people like Miller and Cooper?

GABLER: Exactly. Exactly. The real danger is that the administration, and the courts, and the public are all hostile to the press. That's emboldened the courts to act in a different way.

PINKERTON: I'll bet you that half the investigative stories that ever get published in a newspaper in a year come from anonymous sources, often in the government. And if they aren't protected, if they get busted, and every prosecutor, every mayor, every attorney general, district attorney would love to shut down the free press and dissent. And if that happens, we'll be like in the Soviet Union.

BURNS: So should we worry less here because maybe this, as Neal suggests, this editor is grandstanding, and in fact newspapers, Jane, are still going to go ahead and publish stories of "profound importance" from leaked sources?

HALL: I agree with Jim, and I think that newspapers, that ownership of newspapers also is increasingly further and further away. Entertainment companies own a lot of news today. I don't think a lot of owners of publications are eager to do stories that are going to get them in trouble, and get their reporters jailed. I mean, both of these things are disincentives.

THOMAS: Going back to something Neal said about the people don't trust the press, and something you said, Eric, a moment ago about gee, does this mean the media will have to change reporting standards? Well, yes! That's the whole point. If the media--

BURNS: Change them how?

THOMAS: Well, make them better. There's an awful lot of stuff that gets into the press unsourced, unsubstantiated sometimes, where government people are using the media to advance a particular point of view or to smear somebody else. They're never held accountable for it. This is one of the many reasons why people don't trust the media.

BURNS: We have to take another break...