I hope Judy Miller does not reveal her sources [View All]

This conversation is buried in another thread, but I am reposting the comment and my response here. I think there ought to be one thread pleading the case for standing up for the defense of sources, no matter who they are or what they have done.

Comment: There is no confidentiality privilege and there never has been. That's a myth, and you know it. And there is no right for any journalist to reveal the name of a potential felon in the midst of a criminal investigation. That, sir, is NOT a distinction without a difference. It's a difference wider than wide.

My response:

You are correct. Journalism isn't like the legal profession. There is no American Bar Association for reporters, no long table filled with judges who decide on the merits of conduct, nor are their iron-clad codicils outlining conduct. There are the rules of whatever publication you work for, and then there are standards that have more to do with tradition than anything else.

The 'confidentiality privilege' you seem so ready to throw aside is not carved in stone as it is with doctors and patients or husbands and wives. But confidentiality is the bedrock of the profession nonetheless. If a reporter cannot protect his or her sources, that reporter is out of business and the truth is buried.

Without confidentiality, there would have been no Deep Throat, no Pentagon Papers, and none of the comments from anonymous analysts and intelligence officers in the run-up to the Iraq invasion would have come out. Walter Pincus, Greg Palast and Julian Borges would be writing pure speculation instead of hard fact.

Yes, Miller is protecting a felon or several felons. Yes, there is a difference between protecting a government whistleblower and protecting a government criminal. But I still say it is a distinction without a difference. A source is a source, and because there is no iron-clad protection or source confidentiality makes it all the more important for each and every potential violation of that confidentiality - no matter the specific circumstances - to be fought tooth and nail.

Every publication I have seen comment on this agrees with my assessment. Editor and Publisher agrees with my assessment. They are not doing so because they are colluding with Bush and his crew. They are doing so because source confidentiality is the lifeblood of the business, and it is unprotected, so every time that gets trimmed, we all lose.

Everyone here wants Bush's head on a platter, none more than me. I have spoken with Joe Wilson several times, both on and off the record. His rage over this is thunderous. But I am not willing to throw this basic requirement of journalism under the bus for him, his wife, or for anyone else.

Miller is scum, and Novak is scum. I'd like to see them both drummed out of the business forever. They are protecting people who undermined our national security and committed treason. But if they reveal their sources in this, it will be that much easier for the government to pry loose from a reporter the name of a source that is whistleblowing. Novak and Miller aren't worth that price.

Neither is Bush.