Department of silver linings
"Judith Miller, The New York Times reporter, one of several journalists facing jail time for refusing to reveal who leaked the identify of a CIA operative last year, says she is 'in a state of denial' about the prospect of going off to jail as a crucial contempt of court appeal approaches in a week.
She also says she can only get a fraction of planned work done because of the ongoing meetings, interviews, and legal planning for her defense. 'There is a list of about 20 things I had hoped to do by the end of the year and I will be lucky to get one or two done,' she told E &P on Tuesday.
'It is hard to keep doing your job, which is part of the suppressive effect of these cases,' Miller added. 'I am supposed to becovering the oil-for-food (scandal) and it is very hard to plan a trip or make calls.'"
I'm not real big on throwing reporters in the clink for protecting their sources, however corrupt those sources may be. For every Douchebag of Liberty like Novak, whose sole function in life is to serve as a media tool for corrupt right-wing powerbrokers, there's a guy like Jim Taricani in Providence, who is about to be sentenced for contempt by a judge who has been Queeg-like in his efforts to track down the source of an ultimately meaningless leak that had no bearing in a case that has long since been settled.
But I'm sorely tempted to make an exception for Judith Miller; anything that keeps her from doing what she views as being her job can't be all bad. That the Times would allow her to report on anything vaguely related to Iraq or Ahmed Chalabi at this point is utterly inexplicable, and is an indication of just how invested they are in offering their readers credible information on the situation in Iraq. Which is to say, not much at all.