Skip to comments.
Jailed Reporter Miller Seeks Shield Law
The Associated Press ^
| October 18, 2005
| Ken Ritter
Posted on 10/18/2005 11:01:30 AM PDT by DallasMike
Jailed Reporter Miller Seeks Shield Law
By KEN RITTER
Associated Press Writer
October 18, 2005, 1:23 PM EDT
LAS VEGAS -- New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source and told a journalism conference Tuesday that reporters need a federal shield law so that others won't face the same sanctions.
Miller was jailed 85 days for refusing to reveal the source who disclosed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.
"Ultimately we protect sources so people will come forth -- so people will know," she told the national conference of the Society of Professional Journalists. ...http://www.spj.org/
Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press
(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abovethelaw; bush; cia; cialeak; judithmiller; libby; niger; plame; rove; scooter; shieldlaw; valerie; wilson; yellowcake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
National Review Online contributor Clifford D. May argues pretty convincingly that the evidence points to Joseph Wilson as the one...
In an interview with CNN on Friday, July 25th, Joseph Wilson said “my wife was not a clandestine officer the...
One of the reporters at the center of all the Valerie Plame nonsense — TIME Magazine’s Matt Cooper — is the husband...
As Wizbang, Captain’s Quarters, and others have noted, Newsweek has a new article out entitled “Matt Cooper’s Source: What Karl...
Stingray: Conservative Christian News and Commentary
To: DallasMike
This piss poor reporter needs a panty shield.
2
posted on
10/18/2005 11:02:48 AM PDT
by
funkywbr
To: DallasMike
New York Times reporter Judith Miller defended her decision to go to jail to protect a source Nothing like starting out an article with a false premise. The MSM will be busy little beavers distracting from the real untold story about Miller and the names she was truly protecting.
3
posted on
10/18/2005 11:02:53 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: DallasMike
It couldn't apply ex post facto anyway. Lock up the criminal Miller and all her accomplices.
To: DallasMike
Federal Shield Law = Reporters-Can-Lie-About-Sources-Without-Fear-Of-Discovery Law
Just what we need, a law that gives reporters a blank check to lie.
To: Steve_Seattle
Exactly, this case has shown once again the extreme unreliability of MSM reporters in handling confidential sources and the stunning biased mendacity of most in the MSM. The idea of giving them a lifetime "blank check" to do anything they want with unnamed sources is just so foolish.
6
posted on
10/18/2005 11:08:36 AM PDT
by
Enchante
(Bill Clinton: "I did not have sex with any of the skeletons in my closet!")
To: DallasMike
Why does Miller need a shield law when she can't even remember who her source was? (sarcasm)
7
posted on
10/18/2005 11:08:56 AM PDT
by
newzjunkey
(CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
To: Steve_Seattle
Federal Shield Law = Reporters-Can-Lie-About-Sources-Without-Fear-Of-Discovery Law Exactly, Rather would still be around protected by the shield.
8
posted on
10/18/2005 11:14:11 AM PDT
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: DallasMike
The "source" she went to jail to protect released her from confidentiality before she went to jail. That means either she was immensely stupid not to notice that fact or she was protecting someone or something else. I would like to know what were the terms of the agreement she made with the prosecutor before she testified.
9
posted on
10/18/2005 11:15:47 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(We were promised someone in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Maybe next time.)
To: KarlInOhio
The "source" she went to jail to protect released her from confidentiality before she went to jail. That means either she was immensely stupid not to notice that fact or she was protecting someone or something else. I would like to know what were the terms of the agreement she made with the prosecutor before she testified.Exactly. Every newspaper in the country had stories about Libby releasing her from any confidentiality agreements. The story about her not being sure if she really was really is bogus. So what's the real deal?
To: ncountylee
Exactly, Rather would still be around protected by the shield. Rather wasn't run out of town by a prosecutor or a plaintiff's attorney. He was chased out by outraged viewers. A shield law wouldn't prevent that. He still hasn't come clean on the source of the documents and whether his daughter Robin was involved in it. She is one of the few I could see him sacrificing his (and others) career to hide from the spotlight.
11
posted on
10/18/2005 11:19:42 AM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(We were promised someone in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Maybe next time.)
To: KarlInOhio
The "source" she went to jail to protect released her from confidentiality before she went to jail. She had another source (perhaps one of the Wilsons, perhaps Hannah, perhaps another reporter or someone in the CIA she had contacts with from her WMD reporting) and would not come out until Fitzgerald promised he wouldn't ask her about anyone but Libby.
12
posted on
10/18/2005 11:21:47 AM PDT
by
IMRight
Ok, I have to ask this... she went to jail to protect her source, but said it was someone other than Libby, but can't recall who... uhhhhhhhhhhhh, why does that not make sense...
13
posted on
10/18/2005 11:23:30 AM PDT
by
oolatec
To: KarlInOhio
I can see reporters distorting the shield law to protect themselves from questions from all quarters.
14
posted on
10/18/2005 11:24:59 AM PDT
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: ncountylee
Actually, there ought to be a law that they can't use anonymous sources. That would clear a whole lot of messes up right there.
To: dirtboy
Another perspective on this question..assume, hypothetically, that EVERYONE agreed on the need for a shield law. Now you have an even bigger problem...defining who, or what, is a "journalist?" Every blogger, every one doing Podcsting..whatever..
16
posted on
10/18/2005 11:27:24 AM PDT
by
ken5050
(Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
To: DallasMike
17
posted on
10/18/2005 11:31:19 AM PDT
by
cgk
(Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time & the task is yours to do.)
To: Enchante
I have a sister and brother in law in the newspaper business, and they are very touchy about their profession, so I have to watch what I say at family gatherings, which are mostly at their house. I would say they most reporters don't deliberately make up stuff, but they are extraordinarily blind to their own biases and the extent that those biases determine how a story is covered, or whether it's covered at all. There is a very deep seated professional arrogance in journalism these days, possibly made worse by insecurities aroused by the Internet, the blogosphere, Fox News, and talk radio. People in the MSM seem blissfully unaware of how their own rhetoric harms people and destroys people, and yet are shocked and offended when people apply similar rhetoric and judgements to them. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Any criticisms of them are dismissed as "media bashing."
To: DallasMike
A Federal Shield Law gives MSM (and we know who they are) a curtain to hide behind in an effort to advance any agenda.
No accountability.
To: DallasMike
Forgot to add....Miller is a brainless twit.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson