Who Can Really Say?

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?

Posted by Peter at October 14, 2004 09:00 PM