DU'ERS we need you important!

Dear SPJ Board,

So you are considering Judith Miller of the New York Times for a First Amendment Award. I find this news somewhat disheartening. In the last five years I know of few journalists who may have done so much to impede the First Amendment than Ms. Miller.

In the lead up to the war with Iraq, Ms. Miller was the water carrier for the Bush administration, echoing the administration's arguments for weapons of mass destruction that many knowledgeable people were saying couldn't exist. I find it downright bizarre that long after we know that the critics were correct and Miller was wrong, that you would select her to receive this accolade.

Ms. Miller may be neck deep in the Bush administration's attempts to control the media to deceive the country and the world into an unjustified, preemptive war against a defenseless country.

With regards to her jailing for contempt, an appelate court three judge panel ruled unanimously to uphold the lower court's comtempt charge for not revealing her sources. This was in spite of First Amendment protections because

"the Court stated that it could not 'seriously entertain the notion that the
First Amendment protects a newsman's agreement to conceal the criminal
conduct of his source . . . on the theory that it is better to write about a
crime than to do something about it.'" (source: Boston Herald)

Judge David Tatel wrote that the sources could remain confidential, "were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate." (source: Washington Post)

In fact, the court made clear that they would have preferred to protect Ms. Miller's rights but that the situation of the case argued against it. We still do not know the details behind this decision. It is premature to presume that the contempt charge was not appropriate.

Everything about Ms. Miller's possible entanglements with the Bush administration speaks loudly for restraint on this matter. The Bush administration has shown itself to be willing to break down First Amendment freedom of the press by deliberately managing the press, buying journalists, and otherwise influencing information in front of the public. Ms. Miller may have been a pawn or a willing participant in these efforts.

I implore you to please consider your decision carefully. Ms. Miller is not deserving of this accolade at this time. In fact, the award may become a considerable embarassment to the SPJ if the facts reveal that she was complicit, wittingly or otherwise, in administration attempts to abridge the freedom of the press. In that case, her jailing may have been entirely appropriate and a First Amendment Award entirely inappropriate.

Please find somebody who is clearly more deserving of a First Amendment Award, somebody who actually protected and upholds the amendment instead of Miller who may have done damage to it.

Thank you for an opportunity to respond.


Sincerely yours,

Dear All,

I am writing to voice my opposition to Ms. Judy Miller of the New York Times as the 2005 recipient of your prestigious Eugene S. Pulliam First Amendment Award. As someone who works occasionally as a freelance magazine journalist, teaches writing to youth and works as a writer in a related writing field (narrative non-fiction); as someone who always stresses to my students the value of truth and highest in ethics in their conduct and writing, I am disgusted by this choice.

Yes, Ms. Miller spent time in jail for refusing to ID her source, but as this investigation has gone on it is beginning to appear that Ms. Miller did so, not because of a high-minded ideal in defense of a free press, but because she was likely an active contributor to a criminal conspiracy. That she was not acting as a journalist in this obfuscation of the Fitzgerald grand jury but as a conspirator against the truth. What message does this send the youth and the next up-and-coming generation of journalists? That's it's okay to drag down your profession and the reputation of all of your peers by using powers and freedoms given to you to act in the public good to act as a partisan, violating everything that your credibility and that of your writers depend upon? That the trust given by the public to act in an unbiased and free manner in your duties as a documenter of events is a quaint and archaic joke? Acting in an ethical manner as a reporter is hindrance to accolade and should be avoided? It does all this and more.

A basic and perfunctory search of reporters without Borders revealed 51 reporters killed and 105 imprisoned in 2005 worldwide. Out of 156 worthy recipients you could not find 1 potential candidate for the Pulliam more deserving than Ms. Miller? Individuals who suffered torture and, in many cases, death for standing up to speak and print truth in the face of evil, truly living the ideals for which this award stands; ideals which Judy Miller has made a mockery of.

Sincerely,

XXXX