Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Weapons of Miller's Descriptions

Weapons of Miller's Descriptions
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2004, 06:11 PM
 
From The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Weapons of Miller's descriptions
By Herbert L. Abrams

Spoon-fed information about Iraq's WMDs, New York Times reporter Judith Miller authored many stories later found to be misleading or downright false.

By June 3, 2003, according to a Harris Poll, 35 percent of Americans believed that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been found in Iraq, while 10 percent were not sure; in October, 30 percent were still persuaded, although six months of searching had failed to uncover any such weapons. How could so many have been convinced in the face of the total absence of evidence?

Selected comments from New York Times reporter Judith Miller's dispatches from December 2001 through June 2003 provide part of the answer. [1]

Miller, with a special knack for writing what the Pentagon liked to read, was the sole reporter embedded with the 75th Exploitation Task Force, which operated Mobile Exploitation Teams (MET Alpha, MET Bravo) hunting for WMD in Iraq. Her stories, which were widely reprinted or reported in other newspapers, on cable TV, and on talk radio, helped convey the impression to the nation that illicit weapons had been found in Iraq, supposedly validating the decision for war.
(...)
Over time, Miller's reporting from Iraq attracted increasing attention. On April 21, Jack Shafer of Slate.com accused her and the Times of shortchanging readers by neglecting to detail the terms of censorship--or "accreditation to report" as Miller called it--that they had accepted. Nevertheless, Shafer credited her with a scoop for her report on the Iraqi scientist who witnessed the Iraqi destruction of WMD.

But the scoop, which was never verified, was described by one of Shafer's e-mail respondents as "unsubstantiated hearsay, speculation; possibly completely made up." Shafer, in a July 25 piece titled "The Times Scoops That Melted," suggested that the executive editor of the Times should launch an investigation: Had Miller "grown too close to her sources to be trusted . . . or to recant?"
(...)
In her preference for hyperbole over dispassionate reporting, Miller made a choice. It was not that she created the news she reported, but rather that she evoked a tone and urgency that were unwarranted by the fragility and self-interestedness of her sources. She was careful to include caveats, qualifiers, disclaimers, and occasional doubts as an index of balance. But justifying the war and confirming her pre-war claims appear to have been more important to her than serving the interests of her readers. And it is not a trivial issue if these motives were "at odds with [her] professional duties."[19]
(...)
Unfortunately, it is likely that Miller, who seems to have been unconcerned about even the appearance of conflict of interest, will continue to consider any allusions to her problematic reporting--as in the foregoing pages--unwarranted. "I'm very comfortable with all of my reporting and very proud of it," she has said. [20] She stands by her dispatches and her view that critical comments about them are "beat[ing] up on the messenger" who willingly relayed unverified government handouts without making independent checks or sometimes even issuing necessary retractions. [22] It is even more unfortunate that it took her editors so long to acknowledge their failure in the matter.
A very interesting article about the involvement of interested agents in the media. The whole article is very interesting. What do you think?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 08:03 AM
 
You know what I find so funny about this whole Judith Miller story? No you don't. How could you possible know. Okay, I'll tell you. France is derided as freedom hating and all kinds of bad things by Americans and yet Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
You know what I find so funny about this whole Judith Miller story? No you don't. How could you possible know. Okay, I'll tell you. France is derided as freedom hating and all kinds of bad things by Americans and yet Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do.
I always thought American journalists were legally protected too, and they generally are. As much as I think Miller is a government propagandist, I don't think she should go to jail.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
You know what I find so funny about this whole Judith Miller story? No you don't. How could you possible know. Okay, I'll tell you. France is derided as freedom hating and all kinds of bad things by Americans and yet Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do.
French journalists can unilaterally immunize people from criminal prosecutions? That's not a rule I'd want.

She isn't going to jail for anything she wrote. She's going to jail for contempt. It's not a freedom of the press issue. It's a nobody-is-above-the-law issue.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
It's not a freedom of the press issue.
Precisely, the press is freer in France than it is in the US.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
Precisely, the press is freer in France than it is in the US.
You didn't answer the question. If a journalist in France decided to, could she immunize someone from a criminal investigation?
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:25 AM
 
I've been working way too much. As soon as I saw immunize I started wondering why a journalist would be doing that.....

Anyway. I think the laws here in Northern Europe protect the rights of informants. Meaning that the government can't force the reporter to give up the name of the informant.

Am I understanding this correctly in that she is going to jail for not telling the government who informed her of whatever she wrote? That just sounds wrong to me.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
French journalists can unilaterally immunize people from criminal prosecutions?
Maybe she agrees with you that there was no criminal wrongdoing in this case.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Maybe she agrees with you that there was no criminal wrongdoing in this case.
That's not for her (or me) to decide. That's for the Grand Jury. Even if there is no crime it doesn't alter her obstruction of justice.

I think this is part of the problem here. People are lumping together the merits of the Plame investigation with the merits of the contempt issue. The issues are quite separate. I wonder if these journalists were shielding a murderer who had confessed to them, would people still think they were right not to cooperate with the prosecutor? The issue would be exactly the same. And of course, it wouldn't make any difference if the murderer were later found innocent or guilty.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
You didn't answer the question. If a journalist in France decided to, could she immunize someone from a criminal investigation?
Effectively yes, because in France she has a right to keep her sources confidential. In truth, France is not a paragon of virtue on this point either, but it's a heck of a lot better.

You probably don't care, but I wonder if you realise that the US signed up to the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights. Check out Article 8 of its Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression - every journalist has "the right to keep his/her source of information, notes, personal and professional archives confidential".
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
You probably don't care, but I wonder if you realise that the US signed up to the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Sigs/b-32.html

Unratified and unlikely ever to be ratified, which makes the Commission a nullity here. I suspect you knew that though, you said "signed up to." That's pretty slippery of you. I know you know that treaties have to be ratified to take effect.

Sorry, this is a balancing rule and I think the balance is properly struck. Private individuals (which is what journalists are) have an obligation to cooperate with law enforcement and the courts. That is what she is running afoul of. Now, some states have decided in their state prosecutions to grant a qualified privilege. They are free to do that, although I think it is foolish. So you can climb down a little off your high horse. But as a federal constitutional matter, journalists have no special privilege not granted any other citizen. That's exactly how it should be.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jul 8, 2005 at 11:56 AM. )
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
That's not for her (or me) to decide. That's for the Grand Jury.
Good for you. In the other thread, you seemed to be arguing that there probably was no crime, despite the fact that the prosecutor isn't supposed to subpoena a journalist unless there actually was a crime.

In any case, there is a First Amendment, and it does guarantee a free press. I think that a close-to-absolute confidentiality privilege for the press would enhance that freedom, but apparently that's not where things stand right now. But I do think it's telling that the legal system views attorney-client privilege more seriously.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Sigs/b-32.html

Unratified and unlikely ever to be ratified, which makes it a nullity.
That's not the point. The US makes out as if it's this defender of human rights and this model democracy and then doesn't even defend a basic element of democracy (freedom of the press). That's slippery, signing treaties that make it look as if you're in favour of defending the press and then crying "no ratification, we aren't bound" when things get sticky. I know the treaty doesn't bind you, and I never said it did, I merely pointed out that the US has signed it which indicates some kind of commitment at some stage in your history to the values that underlie it.
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
But as a federal constitutional matter, journalists have no special privilege not granted any other citizen. That's exactly how it should be.
In your opinion, that's how it should be. All I'm pointing out is that other people in other countries have more freedoms than you are. You don't think people should have those freedoms but that's just your opinion.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Good for you. In the other thread, you seemed to be arguing that there probably was no crime, despite the fact that the prosecutor isn't supposed to subpoena a journalist unless there actually was a crime.

In any case, there is a First Amendment, and it does guarantee a free press. I think that a close-to-absolute confidentiality privilege for the press would enhance that freedom, but apparently that's not where things stand right now. But I do think it's telling that the legal system views attorney-client privilege more seriously.
I think the rule is he isn't supposed to subpoena unless there is reason to believe there is a crime. That isn't the same thing as saying there objectively was a crime. Whether or not there was a crime isn't up to the prosecutor. It's first up to the grand jury, and ultimately, the trial court if it gets that far. So whether or not the prosecutor thinks there is a crime can't be the standard. And of course, it certainly isn't the standard that a mere journalist gets to decide.

As I explained before, "the press" in the freedom of the press never did and does not mean only individuals employed by a corporation that publishes a newspaper. There is no way to extend that privilege without either having the state license journalists (which I don't think we really want) or granting everyone the right to refuse subpoenas. You have a choice. Either create a privileged constitutional class (bad idea) or allow something that would seriously obstruct law enforcement (also a bad idea). Or you can do what we do now, which is require journalists to behave like ordinary citizens. That's a good idea. The freedom and exchange of ideas isn't something limited to a clergy of journalists.

It's true that the attorney-client privilege exists, and the journalist privilege does not. That's by necessity and it isn't to protect the lawyer. It would be hard to have a meaningful right to counsel if the government could simply order the lawyer to tell it everything the client told him in confidence. In effect, criminal defendants would face two sets of prosecutors -- the government, and their own lawyers. However, the attorney-client privilege isn't absolute. Lawyers also go to jail if they claim that privilege wrongly.

In fact, none of the recognized privileges are absolute. Even the president's executive privilege is qualified by the duty to cooperate with an ongoing criminal prosecution. So if Miller were the President of the United States, she'd still have to tell the special prosecutor what she knows.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jul 8, 2005 at 12:32 PM. )
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
That's not the point. The US makes out as if it's this defender of human rights and this model democracy and then doesn't even defend a basic element of democracy (freedom of the press). That's slippery, signing treaties that make it look as if you're in favour of defending the press and then crying "no ratification, we aren't bound" when things get sticky. I know the treaty doesn't bind you, and I never said it did, I merely pointed out that the US has signed it which indicates some kind of commitment at some stage in your history to the values that underlie it.
Troll: you do realize do you not that the US government is split into different branches and sometimes speaks with more than one voice. Carter signed the treaty back in 1977. But a president's signature doesn't bind the United States. Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. I'm quite sure that Carter and the Senate didn't conspire to send a conflicting message. Much more likely, Carter signed it, and then couldn't get it ratified. It's probably a sign that he should have consulted the Senate before putting his pen to the paper. That happened several times during his administration. Especially, of course, when as here, the treaty would have changed US law in fairly radical ways.

We have freedom of the press and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. No rule anywhere says that all aspects of constitutional law have to be absolutely identical in all countries. If France wants to allow journalists to license criminal conduct, that is up to France. But just because the US strikes a slightly different balance between competing policy concerns doesn't make the US any less free.

Small differences exist all over the place. For example, British libel laws allow suits against newspapers and journalists that would not be successful against newspapers in the United States. Galloway, for example, could never have won his suit against the Telegraph if the Telegraph were a US newspaper because the US "actual malice" standard of New York Times v. Sullivan would have prevented it. Does that mean that the UK doesn't have freedom of the press? Or is it perhaps just a minor variation in the law between two countries that most definitely have the freedom of the press?

You really need to climb down off that high horse a bit.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jul 8, 2005 at 01:09 PM. )
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:52 PM
 
Here's a lot of info on journalist confidentiality privileges. Apparently many individual states (31 of them) have some type of shield law for reporters, and other states' courts have recognized a privilege. But no federal law exists and only a minimal one, if any, has been recognized by the federal courts. Federal legislation has been proposed but not yet passed.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 12:55 PM
 
Methinks some people are mixing up the freedom of the press to write whatever they see fit and the press getting a free ride to do anything it wants.

Judith Miller is NOT going to jail because of what she printed. She is going to jail for not disclosing to the grand jury who her source was, in the course of the investigation of a crime (I'm not saying one occured, I'm just saying that's why the grand jury was convened.)

Just working for a newspaper does not give one cart blanche to do whatever they want and then wrap themselves in the First Ammendment. Otherwise, why would we bother to have libel and slander laws? Freedom of the press is not absolute, they have responsibilities, too.

Doesn't anyone get it? Freedom comes with responsibility!
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
Hi Dave. Did you know that our fine state has a law giving reporters a near-absolute confidentiality privilege?

(1) Without his or its consent no person, including any newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, news service, radio station, television station, or community antenna television service or any person connected with or employed by any of these for the purpose of gathering, writing, editing, or disseminating news may be examined as to or may be required to disclose any information obtained or prepared or the source of that information in any legal proceeding if the information was gathered, received, or processed in the course of his employment or its business.

(2) A person described in subsection (1) may not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas for refusing to disclose or produce the source of any information or for refusing to disclose any information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving, or processing information in the course of his or its business.
Do you think this is a bad law? Do you think the rest of the country should have something similar, or only us?
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
You know what I find so funny about this whole Judith Miller story? No you don't. How could you possible know. Okay, I'll tell you. France is derided as freedom hating and all kinds of bad things by Americans and yet Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do.
VERRY skillful spin, Troll!

To you I doff my cap!

Here's an analysis of what Troll has accomplished.

There are some folks who look for the truth in a situation and who let the resulting chips from their trek along a conscience guided path fall where they may.

But there are OTHER folks who are driven by their own ideology and constantly look to support their view and whose reason for living (almost, and for some, totally) is to make and prove their own points of view. When news CAN be twisted and massaged and slightly changed to still resemble the REAL truth but also be shown to support this person's point of view, that is called SPIN.

For those who play the "spin game" Judith Miller is either a hated and reviled contemptuous figure or she is a patriot.

She would be seen as a patriot by those who believe her reporting from Iraq rightfully and accurately helped the US gubmint establish the political atmosphere needed to successfully pull the trigger on Iraq. Even though she may (and maybe not?) have committed journalistic improprieties, the thought in some quarters is that IF she did break her 'reporters vows'
she did so in the cause of freedom...and there is no higher duty than that!

She is hated by those opposed to that military invasion because, as the quoted article alleges, her reporting was irresponsibly and unprofessionally colored to create a false impression of an event. They would say, in effect, that she lied. By the way, it should be noted that one of the hallmarks of journalistic performance is honest, unbiased and accurate reporting of events, leaving one's own bias out of the story. Lying, no matter WHAT the justification is REPUGNANT and totally unacceptable!

Follow me now...

Those who support Judith Miller's reporting and her actions in Iraq are more likely conservative, Republican, flag waving patriotic Americans who also support ALL the constitutional freedoms, and one of the most cherished of those freedoms is freedom of expression (freedom of the press).

Because of France's political stances and positions over the years, the previously mentioned group of American patriots have come to feel a particular animosity towards the French.

Now, consider Troll's masterful way of pitting the American patriot against his own beliefs/sentiments:

France is derided as freedom hating and all kinds of bad things by Americans and yet Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do.
If the reader dislikes the French, he would have to applaud their 'wisdom' in allowing and even protecting what Judith Miller is being accused of. And the patriot approves of what Miller allegedly did.

If the reader dislikes and strenuously disapproves of France's system of government which would LEGALLY PROTECT such sacrilege as journalistic bias they would be condemning the alleged actions of Judith Miller, who they support.

That's why this is such a WONDERFUL post.

I can feel myself wrestling with the implications of choosing either way. Talk about being on the horns of a dilemna!!! Hahaha!

Damed if you do and damned if you don't!!!

THIS is my nominee for POST of the YEAR!

Short, sweet, powerful and it stays with you long after the reading.



     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
Methinks some people are mixing up the freedom of the press to write whatever they see fit and the press getting a free ride to do anything it wants.

Judith Miller is NOT going to jail because of what she printed. She is going to jail for not disclosing to the grand jury who her source was, in the course of the investigation of a crime (I'm not saying one occured, I'm just saying that's why the grand jury was convened.)

Just working for a newspaper does not give one cart blanche to do whatever they want and then wrap themselves in the First Ammendment. Otherwise, why would we bother to have libel and slander laws? Freedom of the press is not absolute, they have responsibilities, too.

Doesn't anyone get it? Freedom comes with responsibility!
davesimondotcom, I get it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
VERRY skillful spin, Troll!

To you I doff my cap!

Here's an analysis of what Troll has accomplished.
Maybe you can explain this because I don't see anything especially witty. All I see is a strained attempt to link unconnected things and to score jingoistic points. This issue has nothing at all to do with Iraq, has nothing at all to do with anything Miller may have written in the past (and who is Miller anyway, damned if I know.). It certainly has nothing to do with France and nobody who is concerned with the proper interpretation of the US Constitution is going to give a flying you know what what France does.

So all in all, a whole lot of irrelevancies to the actual issue.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 08:27 PM
 
Something that seems to be slipping by people is that the issue is not printing good stories, it is reporting information that comes from someone who may or may not have broken the law, either in divulging the information or in developing the information in the first place. The first situation comes from relating information legally protected from disclosure, such as information classified under the National Security Act of 1957 (generally refered to as simply "classified information."). The second refers to situations when a reporter deals with someone involved in criminal activity, such as a member of an criminal organization. In both cases the press issue is held to be secondary to the law enforcement issue.

In this case, it comes down to Ms. Miller having received classified information from someone who was not authorized to divulge it to anyone. THAT PERSON should be subject to very harsh penalties, but because Ms. Miller, who appears to have been an accessory to the violation of the National Security Act, refuses to name her source, she has been found in contempt of court. Not for printing the information she got, but for not disclosing who it was that told her, violating the law in the process.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Hi Dave. Did you know that our fine state has a law giving reporters a near-absolute confidentiality privilege?



Do you think this is a bad law? Do you think the rest of the country should have something similar, or only us?
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what I think about such a law. I can see the value in it, but I can also see reasons why that confidentiality shouldn't be absolute.

I mean, without the revealing of sources in one way or another, I can see how reporters could end up more like Jayson Blair. They have to be accountable in some ways, otherwise they could just make stuff up.

<---begin rant that only people from Montana would even come close to caring about, and most of them probably won't --->

Besides, BRussell, you should realize by now that in our state it does't matter what the press does. Each city has one source of news, and that source usually sucks. (Bozeman Chronicle I'm looking at you.) They either spend their time printing news releases of various groups or writing feel-good pieces that have no impact. There is basically no such thing as investigative reporting in Montana, AFAIK.

Television is a bit more competitive (they have TWO news stations in Billings!!) But TV news is shallow compared to what one can learn in print. 15 seconds of airtime versus a page of print, no contest.

P.S. I'm not as pissed at the world as this post makes it seem. Maybe I'll throw in a and a just to lighten it up a bit.
( Last edited by davesimondotcom; Jul 8, 2005 at 09:30 PM. Reason: Needed to clarify the "tone")
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Maybe you can explain this because I don't see anything especially witty. All I see is a strained attempt to link unconnected things and to score jingoistic points. This issue has nothing at all to do with Iraq, has nothing at all to do with anything Miller may have written in the past (and who is Miller anyway, damned if I know.). It certainly has nothing to do with France and nobody who is concerned with the proper interpretation of the US Constitution is going to give a flying you know what what France does.

So all in all, a whole lot of irrelevancies to the actual issue.
Troll was able to expose a set of conditions which apparently exist whereby a patriotic conservative who supports Judith Miller's reportage in Iraq must accept one of two equally repellent notions.

Praise the French version of freedom and realize it is 'freer' than ours or find yourself in favor of our endorsing a lower and sleazier standard of journalistic ethics as you wish to spare Miller any ill-effects of her despicable/noble journalistic actions.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Troll was able to expose a set of conditions which apparently exist whereby a patriotic conservative who supports Judith Miller's reportage in Iraq must accept one of two equally repellent notions.

Praise the French version of freedom and realize it is 'freer' than ours or find yourself in favor of our endorsing a lower and sleazier standard of journalistic ethics as you wish to spare Miller any ill-effects of her despicable/noble journalistic actions.
Well, it doesn't work the way you suppose for three reasons.

1. Nobody cares who Miller is, or what she wrote in the past. It has nothing to do with this issue.

2. France's rules for journalists aren't "freer" than the US'. The rules are a little different from those of most circuits in the federal courts, but that doesn't equate to being freer. And personally, I think investing journalists with that much discretion is a bad idea.

3. What happens in France isn't anybody's benchmark anyway. If they like their rules, that's fine for them, but of no concern here.

Basically, Troll's article was based on stereotypes about what those people think. That only works if the stereotypes are accurate. As is so often the case, the stereotypes were wrong.
     
mojo2
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2005, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Well, it doesn't work the way you suppose for three reasons.

1. Nobody cares who Miller is, or what she wrote in the past. It has nothing to do with this issue.

2. France's rules for journalists aren't "freer" than the US'. The rules are a little different from those of most circuits in the federal courts, but that doesn't equate to being freer. And personally, I think investing journalists with that much discretion is a bad idea.

3. What happens in France isn't anybody's benchmark anyway. If they like their rules, that's fine for them, but of no concern here.

Basically, Troll's article was based on stereotypes about what those people think. That only works if the stereotypes are accurate. As is so often the case, the stereotypes were wrong.

1. The issue Troll discussed, which I responded to has to do with what was contained in the quoted text. What you are talking about has nothing to do with THIS issue. And I'm sure someone, somewhere does care about who Ms. Miller is and what she wrote.

2. Ah, so you are saying Troll misspoke when he said, "...Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do...?"

3. I was making a point about how someone who admired Miller's possible influence in service to her President would find themselves facing one of two less than appealing propositions.

You asked me to explain. I tried my best to do so but obviously it didn't work.

Troll commented on angaq0k's article. I commented on Troll's remark. I haven't read Troll's article so, I don't know what you are talking about.


     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
1. The issue Troll discussed, which I responded to has to do with what was contained in the quoted text. What you are talking about has nothing to do with THIS issue. And I'm sure someone, somewhere does care about who Ms. Miller is and what she wrote.

2. Ah, so you are saying Troll misspoke when he said, "...Judith Miller is going to jail for doing something that every French journalist has a legally protected right to do...?"

3. I was making a point about how someone who admired Miller's possible influence in service to her President would find themselves facing one of two less than appealing propositions.

You asked me to explain. I tried my best to do so but obviously it didn't work.

Troll commented on angaq0k's article. I commented on Troll's remark. I haven't read Troll's article so, I don't know what you are talking about.


What you are still failing to understand is there isn't some large group of conservatives out there rooting for Miller based on what she wrote in the past. When I first saw all these claims that there is I was so puzzled I had to look up what she wrote about Iraq that was supposed to be so special. To me, all her name meant was "New York Times reporter" and as I would have thought you knew by now, the New York Times isn't exactly the right's favorite newspaper. So where is this group concerned with her ideological position? From what I can tell it isn't the right, it's the anti-Iraq war left.

The left is mad at her because the left is still obsessed with the idea that the country was "mislead" or "lieeeeeeed" to over Iraq, and apparently, Miller gets some of the blame from that quarter. I can only suppose that their obsession is such that they think that everyone else shares it. So the thinking seems to be that if they are hopping mad at this NYT reporter, then the other side that disagrees with them on Iraq must be lining up to support her. In fact, that isn't the case because the other side doesn't share the left's obsession with the go-to-war decision of 2002 and 2003, and isn't all that interested in her or what she may have written about Iraq 2 years ago. It's not our defining issue. And that is why I haven't seen any reference by any conservative to her reporting in Iraq. They just don't care. It's the left that cares, not the right.

And the same of course goes for any comparisons between individual rights between the US and France. The only way that could possibly be a concern is if someone already buys into the idea that the press should have the right to immunize their sources from criminal investigations. Nobody who disagrees with that is going to lose any sleep over the idea that another country has a different rule. Least of all France. That kind of comparison is like telling a conservative that France has more freedom because it has abolished the death penalty. Nobody who supports the death penalty would think that abolishing it is any kind of advance. So once again, the supposed "trap" fails for lack of understanding how the people you want to trap really think.

And in any case, Troll is seriously misunderstanding how American conservatives generally regard France. Like a lot of supposed rivalries, it's only really a rivalry from the point of view of one side of the rivalry. Think of college rivalries, or sports team rivalries. One college or team is always obsessed with the other, and supposes that the other is equally obsessed with it. The other college or team is generally aware of the supposed rivalry, but really doesn't care all that much because it doesn't share the insecurity that makes the other team or college obsessed.

French people seem to us to be kind of obsessed with comparing themselves to Americans. It looks to us a lot like insecurity. In contrast, American conservatives get irritated with French policy and of course enjoy making France the butt of a lot of jokes, but there is no insecurity there as regards the US way of life versus that of France. The idea that American conservatives are going to look at what is being done in France and think that is a reason to reinterpret the US Constitution is beyond laughable. We just don't care what they do.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jul 9, 2005 at 08:05 AM. )
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 12:12 PM
 
No there aren't any conservatives who love Judy for propagandizing for the war, but there are many liberals who see her as a perfect example of the "so called liberal media" that conservatives dishonestly complain about. I like to read both conservative and liberal blogs, and I've never seen a conservative say they were sorry that "their" Judy was going to jail, and yet I've read many liberals say that although they don't like the principle here, they really can't work up any love for this particular reporter.

And it's not only her mouth-piecing for Bush during the dishonest run-up to the war, it's also the fact that she appears to be covering for them now, in this Plame case, which is ultimately also about administration dishonesty in the justification for the war.
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 12:18 PM
 
Posted by Simey:
The left is mad at her because the left is still obsessed with the idea that the country was "mislead" or "lieeeeeeed" to over Iraq, and apparently, Miller gets some of the blame from that quarter. I can only suppose that their obsession is such that they think that everyone else shares it. So the thinking seems to be that if they are hopping mad at this NYT reporter, then the other side that disagrees with them on Iraq must be lining up to support her. In fact, that isn't the case because the other side doesn't share the left's obsession with the go-to-war decision of 2002 and 2003, and isn't all that interested in her or what she may have written about Iraq 2 years ago. It's not our defining issue.
Laying aside for the moment Simey's hyperbole by the use of term, "obsession," this characterization of the difference between those on the so-called "left" and those on the so-called "right," is entirely useful in that it precisely reveals how little the right concerns themselves with an honest accounting for wrongdoing by their government -- especially when it is their party which is in power.

In essence: The "right" just does not care about being led by a bunch of power corrupted crooks and cheats.

For as George W. Bush said:

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

(Quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War, pg 145-46)

Whereas I believe that it is entirely reasonable and proper that those entrusted with public office should intend to be accountable and they should be held accountable by an alert citizenry that demands authenticity, honesty, and transparency in the conduct of public business.

If this makes me part of the "left" and in opposition to those on the "right" then I'm all for it.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what I think about such a law. I can see the value in it, but I can also see reasons why that confidentiality shouldn't be absolute.

I mean, without the revealing of sources in one way or another, I can see how reporters could end up more like Jayson Blair. They have to be accountable in some ways, otherwise they could just make stuff up.

<---begin rant that only people from Montana would even come close to caring about, and most of them probably won't --->

Besides, BRussell, you should realize by now that in our state it does't matter what the press does. Each city has one source of news, and that source usually sucks. (Bozeman Chronicle I'm looking at you.) They either spend their time printing news releases of various groups or writing feel-good pieces that have no impact. There is basically no such thing as investigative reporting in Montana, AFAIK.

Television is a bit more competitive (they have TWO news stations in Billings!!) But TV news is shallow compared to what one can learn in print. 15 seconds of airtime versus a page of print, no contest.

P.S. I'm not as pissed at the world as this post makes it seem. Maybe I'll throw in a and a just to lighten it up a bit.
True enough, maybe there's simply never been any pressure here because there's no reporting here.

But I point it out just to show that the it's not inconceivable to have a strong confidentiality privilege for the press. The world doesn't end. To me, it's a short-term ends-justify-means approach to require reporters to testify in cases like this. Maybe a few cases will be lost (though I doubt too many), but losing some cases is worth it if it protects important principles like a free press. I'd love to see the Bush administration or Rove nailed on this because I think what they did was corrupt and taking the country to war the way they did bordered on a "high crime." But if they can't get evidence without compelling reporters to testify about their work, then they either need to find some other evidence or drop it.

Some people, and let's face it, it's usually conservatives, simply don't like the idea of an adversarial press. I don't even like the fact that Apple has been allowed to compel Mac rumor sites to reveal their sources. Even though that's a trivial example, the more reporting, the better off we are, IMO.
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2005, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
True enough, maybe there's simply never been any pressure here because there's no reporting here.

But I point it out just to show that the it's not inconceivable to have a strong confidentiality privilege for the press. The world doesn't end. To me, it's a short-term ends-justify-means approach to require reporters to testify in cases like this. Maybe a few cases will be lost (though I doubt too many), but losing some cases is worth it if it protects important principles like a free press. I'd love to see the Bush administration or Rove nailed on this because I think what they did was corrupt and taking the country to war the way they did bordered on a "high crime." But if they can't get evidence without compelling reporters to testify about their work, then they either need to find some other evidence or drop it.

Some people, and let's face it, it's usually conservatives, simply don't like the idea of an adversarial press. I don't even like the fact that Apple has been allowed to compel Mac rumor sites to reveal their sources. Even though that's a trivial example, the more reporting, the better off we are, IMO.
As far as the Apple thing, I think the reason they have the right to know the source is that it's likely that that particular source is under NDA and therefore have given Apple the right to sue them if they talk out of school.

Also, I'd like to know the source of the Miller/et al. stories, simply because it would end the rumors that it was Rove. I'm pretty sure it's not him. It would be way too stupid for him, he's usually much further along in the game than most.

I think the reason many conservatives view the media as being liberal biased is because many journalists, if you ask them, would tell you their reason for going to j school was "to change the world." Which, if you take the definition of conservative literally, is the opposite of conservative. To me, a journalist's goal should be to report facts, not to change the world. If the facts they report change the world, good for them, but simply reporting to cause change is reporting with an agenda.

Even though I agree with you that the anonymous source is a needed part of a free press, you have to admit that the press should have some checks and balances too. Remember, Woodward & Bernstein almost didn't get to press because they didn't have multiple sources. Just as you have trouble trusting the motives of the Bush administration, other people mistrust the motives of various parts of the press. Especially after Jayson Blair, anonymous sources should be rare and editors should make sure that anonymous does not equal fictional.

It's a balancing act, I think. I wouldn't legally require all sources to be publicly identified any more than I would require the press to print a rape victim's name. But, at the same time, if a situation occured where a crime was effectively covered up by the reporter's insistance on not revealing a source, that source should be able to be identified in a courtroom in some form.

In the Bill of Rights, just coming First doesn't make that one any more important than the others. And I think I remember something in there about being able to confront one's accuser - that came sixth. (I guess it depends on if forcing someone to reveal a source is abridging the freedom of the press. To me, it's not, they can still print what they want, right?)

Of course, we're also in a time where the Supreme Court forgot this part: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2005, 12:20 PM
 
We need to get this resolved so that I can buy a howitzer before hunting season.

If the Left interpreted the Second Amendment like they try to interpret the First, we'd all be hunting deer with howitzers.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,