The ASJA was all set to give Judith Miller this year's "First Amendment Prize" for her willingness to do time to protect a source. However, their initial decision was very controversial, and since then, the rank-and-file of the group has been in a state of semi-rebellion. All this prompted the group to take back it's award, and in the process question the ethical credentials of Miller's entire career.
Anita Bartholomew, a former member of the group's leadership committee, who resigned over the initial award decision, had this to say:
The First Amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate against a whistle-blower, and scare off other would-be whistle-blowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistle-blowers. When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistle-blower, the notion of shielding a source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment.
It's an interesting point, though debatable, about the substance of the investigation. Granted, Miller didn't even break the story. So while it seems that Bob Novack was all-to-happy to help Karl Rove smear Joe and Valerie Wilson, Miller held off. Still, Bartholomew's point about motivation for protecting a source and potentially inverting the role of journalism is worth exploring. Is the media more of a watchdog or more of a mouthpiece? Which brings us back to the question of the award. Is it award-worthy to protect a source who wanted to give you the "scoop" of using classified information to question the motives of a political opponent?
Comments