Two weeks ago, Michael Miner at the Chicago Reader announced the paper’s decision not to join in an amicus brief on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper, the two reporters who are threatened with jail time for refusing to tell a federal jury who in the federal government told them the identity of CIA operative Valeria Plame. In his column, Miner pointed out that while it may be true that “a person’s principles, like his or her home, must always be defended,” the facts of the Miller/Cooper case, and its judicial history so far, make it a poor case for testing a claim of absolute journalistic privilege in front of the Supreme Court.
I agree with Miner: The Plame case isn’t the best case to demonstrate a claim for journalistic privilege, especially in a high-stakes forum like the Supreme Court. Ideally, a Supreme Court case on confidentiality would involve a journalist protecting a government whistleblower who provided information about a wrongdoing, in which that information served the public interest. This case doesn’t meet that standard.
What I don’t agree with is the idea that journalists’ privilege only exists when the people they’re shielding are good people.
Continue reading "Strange Justice" »