PressEthic

My Writing and Reporting class logged on to the Washington Post website to participate in an online discussion about the Judith Miller case with Lucy Dalglish, “executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,” last Friday. You can see what she said here. Although she did show a preference for soft-ball questions, it was still an interesting discussion.

I liked this question, for one:

Seattle, Wash.: People obviously have lots of questions about Miller's situation -- it's baffling that Libby's people are implying that they didn't know Miller was protecting Libby.

But you know more than most people about the intricacies of this case. So what are the three biggest mysteries/questions that YOU would like Judy Miller to explain?

Lucy Dalglish: 1. Was Scooter Libby your source for information about Valerie Plame, or were you HIS source?

2. Do you feel manipulated by the White House?

3. Do you think any laws were violated in this case (including perjury)?

It’s frustrating how Miller has still not answered any of these questions, nearly a week after she was released from jail. The longer she waits, the more I’m convinced that she was “grandstanding,” just a bit. I guess we'll have to wait for her book comes out before we get answers.

Also, Lucy Dalglish seemed convinced Judith Miller was emerging the victor. Dalglish began the discussion by saying, “We are very pleased that Judy Miller's ordeal appears to be at an end, and that Judy has been able to protect her confidential sources.” She somehow forgot that Miller did not protect her sources. She went to jail. She was then released specifically because she agreed to reveal her sources. The New York Times article Journalists Fear Impact on Protecting Sources by Katharine Q. Seelye discusses the negative legal precedent that Miller’s case may have set for journalism cases to come.