One for Two
I like to read Jeff Jarvis because he's a liberal with his feet on the ground. I don't always agree with him but his arguments often resonate with the side of me that likes to see a contrarian Democrat, seeing as I'm a contrarian Republican. Today he he's one for two at the plate.
Jeff wholeheartedly endorses the NY Times Op-Ed today, co-authored by publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, defending Times reporter Judith Miller who may soon go to jail for "doing her job". This is a sweet rhetorical way of saying she won't honor a lawful federal subpoena, and it makes me wonder what exactly is her job. I'd love to see the description, which must go something like this: Report the news and flout the law. One of the points stressed in the Op-Ed is that Miller is being asked about a conversation she may have had but about which she never wrote a story. And this makes a difference why?
The Times' high-mindedness doesn't change the fact that there is no dispute about the law. Miller does not have any a First Amendment right to avoid responding to the subpoena, a fact that's conveniently avoided by the Times and by Jeff. Both make it sound like this is a terrible thing, so I suppose they support a different rule that goes something like this: You can't divulge national secrets, but if you divulge national secrets to a reporter we can't investigate it. Hey, your mileage may differ, but that works for me.
But Jarvis get's it right in his commentary today about Tom Friedman's Op-Ed (yes -- a busy day at the Times).
***
Sheez, and a busy night for me too. I was interrupted in the middle of this hours ago and now I've got to get it done. Jarvis is right, Friedman's wrong. Read them.
Jeez, but blogging sucks, doesn't it?