|
|
7 July, 2005: Journalism, a profession which forever makes its practitioners feel they are above the law, has received a slap on its face in the US, the land of Joseph Pulitzer.
On Friday, July 6, a US court ordered an investigative journalist of New York Times to four months in prison, for refusing to disclose her sources in the Valerie Plame case. A New York Times report on the case said that Judith Miller appeared 'scared and shaken' when the sentence was pronounced. At another point, the same report quotes Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times as saying that Judith Miller was 'brave' and followed her conscience. Brave and scared, in the same breath? That is journalism for you!
Judith Miller was also quoted as saying that when she was driven to the Alexandria Detention Center in Virginia, she passed many of the establishments of power she had covered as a journalist and felt "how could this happen to me". She was surprised that shackles were put on her hands and feet. After her assetion in court that she had covered Iraq war, we thought she would have been familiar with the harsh side of crime and punishment.
Journalists never imagine themselves at the wrong end of the stick. The feeling of being above law comes naturally to them. In the 'highest interests' of journalism, Miller opted to serve her sentence rather than disclose her sources. Applause please.
Her more pragmatic Time magazine counterpart involved in the same case shifted stance in the last minute, agreeing to disclose his sources. Earlier, Time had turned over the diaries of Matthew Cooper, to assist the investigation.
The Valerie Plame case started long back. Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, dealing with issues on weapons of mass destruction. Her husband ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson had penned an article in the New York Times, contradicting the US government's stance on Iraq's nuclear ambitions. This article is believed to have triggered the case. One fine day, a column appeared in the New York Times, penned by Robert Novak, which named Valerie Plame as one of the CIA operatives. Now, naming a CIA operative is an offence in the US, according to a 1982 law. This was followed by a story in Time's website a few days later, penned by Matthew Cooper, which said that the 'name leak' was motivated by Valerie's husband's newspaper article. The Time report said that the leak was prompted by someone in the administration who wanted to expose Valerie Plame. Judith Miller did not really write the article, but conducted interviews.
A grand jury is hearing the case in US, for which the special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is prosecuting the accused. Fitzgerald has summoned several other journalists in the case, including from NBC and Washington Post, for information on the case. However, both Cooper and Miller have been steadfastly refusing to disclose their sources, citing the First Amendment to the Constitution to evade trial. It is not clear whether Robert Novak has agreed to testify.
The judge Thomas Hogan pulled up both reporters for contempt of court in October. The US Supreme Court refused to entertain the journalists' appeal to intervene. At the last moment, Cooper barely escaped detention, claiming his source contacted him and said that it is OK to reveal his name to the jury. Judith Miller has been sent to prison for four months.
The refusal to testify "could be seen as obstruction of justice", the judge warned.
When all defenses were out, the journalists even petitioned that they be allowed to serve the prison term under house arrest, a request the prosecutor rejected outright, saying "this not a forced vacation at home". Three cheers to that!
The Washington Post commented: "The tepid public reaction to the jailing of Miller and the near-jailing of Cooper reflects the sinking approval of journalists and their constant use of inside sources without names attached." How true!
The Post also talks about the "shadowy deal-making between journalists and sources" to extract information on promise on confidentiality. Post goes on to say many media houses have acknowledged that this is a practice which has been overused and abused. This anonymous source business, the Post says, has been used by many sources to spin, plant and promote their own versions of a story.
New York Times criticized Time's decision to hand over the documents to authorities. Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief of Time Inc said it was the most difficult decision in his 36 years in journalism to hand over Cooper's diaries to the investigating authorities. Did anyone feel any heartbreak in aiding the federal offence of revealing a spy's name and putting her life at risk? No one, I am sure.
At least, Pearlstine has been very clear on his stand on this, though many editors' hearts turn to water at the plight of journalism. Time spent its own money to fight the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, but when it found that no avenues were left, it decided to give up Cooper's diaries. That is what you call a gallant, pragmatic decision.
According to Pearlstine, "when the courts rule that a citizen's obligation to testify before a grand jury takes precedence over the press's First Amendment right, to me, going against that finding would put us above the law." Pearlstine knows where your exercise of fundamental right can turn into a potential criminal act. That calls for enormous sense. Which many journalists living in ivory towers for which their company pays rent sorely lack.
One Fitzgerald sting, in particular, is worth noting: He said journalists can't make their own decisions about whether to reveal their sources or not. "Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," he thundered. All members of the esteemed fourth estate priding themselves over a paltry press card, please take note.
And Miller's defence? "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," she told the judge.
Has anyone ever given such authority to journalists to hide their sources? No. It is just the First Amendment that serves as a shield. Who interprets the law? The court. Besides, is the freedom of the press so fragile that it will crack up if such unfettered authority is not given?
"The freest and fairest societies are not only those with independent judiciaries, but those with an independent press that works every day to keep government accountable by publishing what the government might not want the public to know," the eminent woman journalist told the court.
"I have a person in front of me who is defying the law," said judge Thomas Hogan, pronouncing a jail term for the journalist.
We are not surprised by the journalist's Quixotic outburst. Journalists spend their entire careers preaching how others should conduct their affairs, that they forget their own duties and responsibilities in civil society. Neither journalists nor the judges nor the legislature is above the law. (We thought this was clear to all, but some don't think so). The US courts recently made this supremacy of law very, very clear when Jeb Bush tried to change the law to save Terri Schiavo's life to appease the Christian Right. The courts threw out 'Terri's Law,' citing its unconstitutionality. Shouldn't we be abiding by the law first before setting out to reform the society? We think so.
BY JM
|
