Oh, Those Liberal Journalists
If there is one thing stupider than the American Society of Journalists and Authors earlier decision to offer Judith Miller a “Conscience in Media” Award award for her illegal refusal to divulge sources to a grand jury, it is rescinding it for her not being liberal enough. The group’s Orwellian-named “First Amendment Committee” had, according to Editor and Publisher, ” narrowly voted to give Miller the prize for her dedication to protecting sources, but the full board has now voted to not accept that decision, based on its opinion that her entire career, and even her current actions in the Plame/CIA leak case, cast doubt on her credentials for this award.” Apparently, while journalists routinely claim a “First Amendment” privilege to conceal their sources, this made-up privilege is really intended only for left-wing journalists, not for those who protect sources other journalists would rather not see protected. Anita Bartholomew, who resigned her position over the original award, made this double-standard explicit in her letter of resignation, in which she wrote the following:
“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. 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.”
Translation: phony “First Amendment” protections for me, but not for thee.
August 11th, 2005 at 6:13 am
[...] If we assume that the ninth means what it says (says our courts have consistently ruled that most amendments don’t actually mean what they say), how do we identify those rights? Is there really a right that journalists have that allows them to break laws? I tend to think not. There could some danger in recognizing rights not enumerated in the Constitution (ownership of slaves was thought to be a right once). [...]