LAT columnist to Judy Miller, NYT: "discretion must give way to candor"

[DeepModem Mom]

Los Angeles Times:
Tim Rutten: Regarding Media
Spin cycle springs a leak
April 8, 2006

....Judy Miller was nothing if not an aggressive reporter and yet, in this instance (the Plame leak), she never wrote. Was it because she was reluctant or were her editors skeptical — or did something else intervene? When she didn't report the leak, the administration simply went along Washington's journalistic food chain until it found someone — the columnist Robert Novak — willing to reveal Plame's identity.

But the chain began with Miller....The circumstances surrounding her dealings with Libby, though, could provide the press — and, more important, those who rely on it — with valuable insight into the ways in which the mutual use and misuse of anonymity both informs and misleads the American electorate....

***

Clearly, anonymity cannot be a mere convenience for either reporter or source. Sometimes, though, it is a necessity, and those who insist otherwise simply aren't being serious. However, it's also frivolous — perhaps even reckless — to ignore the paradoxical realization that the news media's ability to hold the identities of certain sources secret now turns on being open about how and why such decisions are made.

Experience is teaching us that there comes a moment in the life of every story when discretion must give way to candor — or, in the current techno-patois, transparency. If that doesn't happen, there's a growing risk that public trust will be forfeit. Without that, there won't be any point to keeping secrets — or any place to print them. Prudent reporters and editors will have to determine for themselves when that moment has arrived, but it's worse than imprudent to pretend it never does.

It's worth asking whether that moment has arrived for Judy Miller and her former employer.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten8apr08,0,4182974.column?coll=la-home-headlines

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Excellent article

Liked this passage:

"It does seem clear, though, that whatever their real intentions, neither Libby nor Cheney nor the president broke the law in this matter. (Libby was indicted for allegedly lying about whether he told Miller that Plame worked for the CIA.) Most legal authorities agree that the president has the power to declassify information virtually at will. Thursday, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales went further, saying the president has the "inherent authority to decide who should have classified information." That wasn't a surprise, of course. Earlier in the week, Gonzales testified to Congress that the president has "inherent authority" to order warrantless wiretaps of American citizens communicating with each other inside the United States.

Next week, it's not out of the question that he'll testify Bush has the "inherent authority" to suspend the law of gravity."

Sounds like the author is a more than a little skeptical about all that "power" that Bush supposedly has.

Too bad this article is in the "entertainment" section of the paper. It deserves top billing.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Indeed! I loved the line about having the authority to suspend...

the law of gravity.

[pacalo]

4. Frank Rich's column was in the NYT "arts & leisure" section, too.

He's brilliant in nailing this administration. Months ago, though, his column was moved to the op-ed section. Haven't seen any of his columns lately, though.

[Grateful for Hope]

6. I didn't know that about Frank Rich n/t

[Olney Blue]

3. This is an important piece.

Judy Miller should STILL come clean.

Kicked.

[pacalo]

5. I suspect she's afraid of the aspens that turn in clusters.