Posted on 07/19/2005 3:35:03 PM PDT by nickcarraway
NEW YORK For Judith Miller of The New York Times, controversy seems to follow her everywhere, from Iraq to getting sent to a detention facility in Virginia for refusing to reveal a source to federal investigators.
Now a organization of journalists that was planning to give Miller an award for her source protection efforts may change its plans following an outpouring of opposition from some members.
The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA), a 50-year-old group of some 1,100 non-fiction independent writers, had proposed giving Miller its "Conscience in the Media" award earlier this week. The group's nine-member First Amendment Committee voted on Monday to recommend that the award be given, a recommendation that the group's full board of directors will consider on July 28. But the recommendation was far from universal, with the committee voting 5-4 in favor of the prize, and many members protesting afterward.
The proposed award has already promped at least one member of the First Amendment Committee to quit the panel. Anita Bartholomew, a freelance journalist who has contributed to Reader's Digest, among others, told E&P she would rather leave the committee than take part in giving Miller an award.
"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 whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers," Bartholomew wrote in a resignation letter provided to E&P. "When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, 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.
"I pointed this out, as did other committee members. All of us were ignored," the letter continued.
"It is unusual to have this kind of disagreement about an award, but independent writers are a prickly bunch," said Jack El-Hai, ASJA president and a book author. "I consider it healthy to hear this kind of debate. It wouldn't be ASJA without it. This isn't an organization that people join to be led."
Shortly after the committee recommendation was revealed, ASJA's members-only online forum was flooded with comments about Miller, El-Hai said. "There are two points of contention," he said. "Should Judy Miller receive the award and should we give an award when there is a lot of disagreement on it? [The award] is to reflect the prevailing feeling of the organization and in this case some are arguing that there is no prevailing feeling about her."
El-Hai would not say if the majority of members appear to favor or oppose the award, but said the lines of disagreement are obvious. "The members who voted against her believe that her actions were in defense of a government source and that is not what the First Amendment is about, they believe," he said. "They believe the First Amendment was intended to protect the press from the government."
But, he said, Miller's supporters claim "Judy has taken a courageous stand and is paying a price for it." El-Hai, who is among the 15 board members who will decide if the award is given, admitted that he had not made up his mind. "I am still deciding," he said. "I don't have strong feelings one way or another and I still don't know how I am going to vote."
This publication and the consistent dreck it prints, is a window into the dementia of the press. They KNOW she is protecting an "official" and not Wilson or Plame or other reporters or..*gasp* herself..How?
The Platter is being prepared......they are starting to EAT their OWN!!!
They're grandstanding. They know it and they know but don't care that we know it. Hope these dudes end up with egg on their faces.
The "source" has to be a Dim. None of them would go to jail to protect a Republican.
Kudos to Anita Bartholomew -- she's right!
I take issue that these dudes and dudessess can be classified as non-fiction writers.
I should think there might be some controversy there.
Hilarious stuff!
I'd love to be there to see these nitwits choking when they learn that Judith Miller and the New York Times are "protecting a source" only because publicly revealing that source would exonerate Rove, and the NY TImes and their party cannot allow that to happen.
(Ssssssshhhhhhh...... Remember - - do not speculate about Miller's mysterious "source". Steer clear of that messy business and stay on message - - fire Rove, fire Rove, fire Rove. The New York Times thanks you.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.