Judith Miller case

8 a.m.: Yesterday I noticed a comment that was posted on Wednesday's entry from a blogger in England. He challenged met o post something more substantive and journalistic, instead of when I woke up and how far I ran. I shall try to do that in the future, although it doesn't come naturally. That is strange, since I am a professional journalist and professor. I spoke at great length in class about the Judith Miller Case. Judith Miller is the New York Times reporter who spent nearly three months in jail for contempt of court because she refused to reveal a confidential source to a grand jury. As a journalist, I support her point of view that journalists should not be compelled to reveal sources, although I always urge my students to refrain from using confidential sources unless it is absolutely necessary. Journalists are in the business of providing information, not keeping secrets. I particularly admire Miller because she got the information (that the wife of a Bush critic was a CIA spy) and chose not to print it. Knowing the identity of a spy does not help the public in this case; it only served to end the career of the spy. Finally yesterday, Miller was released form her pledge by her source (Dick Cheney's chief of staff), and she testified before the grand jury. My hope now is that the grand jury indicts the Bush administration officials who leaked the identity of the spy in order to punish her husband, who had the audacity to point out that there were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. The most important role of journalists in American society is to provide a check on the abuse of power by the government. I hope the Bush administration officials responsible are severely punished for their abuse of power and that no more journalists are not punished for doing their jobs.