A federal judge's decision to jail New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller has emerged as an issue of considerable controversy over the past week. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in an article written two years ago to the day. In an effort to uncover and prosecute the source or sources who made public Ms. Plame's position, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald asked that Ms. Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury. Both refused in the face of certain incarceration, citing the First Amendment as their rationale. Mr. Cooper reversed his stance after receiving permission from a confidential source to do so. Ms. Miller was not so fortunate.
Political ramifications aside, the lasting consequences of Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation have the potential to profoundly alter the environment in which investigative journalism is conducted. Many of the liberties that the citizens of this country enjoy are predicated on freedoms guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights, not the least of which is freedom of press. To infringe on such a freedom is to limit one of the chief means by which Americans communicate their differences, further their knowledge and monitor their government.
Due to the secretive nature in which Mr. Fitzgerald is conducting his investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment on the right or wrong of Judge Thomas F. Hogan's decision to imprison Ms. Miller. Simply put, we do not know what Ms. Miller knows. Instead, we can only hope that when Judge Hogan settled upon his course of action, he did so with full comprehension of its implications.
The promise of anonymity that a reporter guarantees his or her source borders on sacred. Oftentimes those privy to the most critical information cannot afford to link their identity to their comments. To do so would put their careers, even their lives, at stake. Now, however, the bond of trust that writer and source share has been compromised. Already, reporters have begun to question the pledges they have given their informants, fearful that judicial rulings may compel them to go back on their word. The Cleveland Plain Dealer, for example, has decided to bury two major investigative articles rather than risk federal prosecution. If such trends of self-censorship permeate through America's most prominent newspapers, we will all be the poorer.
While the wisdom behind Judge Hogan's ruling is still a matter of contention, Ms. Miller should be praised for her sacrifices. Far too often, what one believes to be right fails to stand up against what one finds to be easy. Whatever her faults may be, Ms. Miller possesses courage of conviction. She currently sits in a prison cell so that United States citizens may live a freer, better life. Ms. Miller's decision unquestionably stands as commendable and noble sacrifice.
