Privacy/Political Power Analysis: Those Who Talk Should Take a Walk

As I write this blog entry, I realize it’s easy to speak what one knows without taking any responsibility. Lewis “Scooter” Libby learned that lesson when he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for leaking the name of C.I.A. Officer Valerie Wilson. The only journalist who refused to testify whether Libby was a source for that information was Judith Miller, former New York Times reporter.

Judge Thomas F. Hogan had ordered a subpoena on the journalist’s sources and she refused to testify, saying, “If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.” (Miller’s statement). Even after the judge had indicated that the sources waived their right of confidentiality, she argued, “waivers demanded by a superior as a condition of employment are not voluntary. They are coercive.” Miller firmly believed that even under law, a source should not have to give over his or her right to privacy. If such an exception became commonplace, government could easily silence potential sources who would otherwise speak freely with journalists they trust. She argued that the government cannot use its authority to justify the invasion of privacy—or more specifically, a source’s right to confidentiality.

Examining Miller’s choice, I would undoubtedly acknowledge her decision as noble and idealistic. She was apparently a superb journalist, even according to her ex-boyfriend Steven Rattner who worked at the Times (NY Magazine Article). She was ruthlessly aggressive when it came to her coverage on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and sought after information from sources by any means necessary. Yet she claims that her refusal to testify was a decision of conscience (interview with PBS).

I believe I would have made the opposite decision along a similar basis—but my loyalty would reside not with my sources but with the truth. A certain measure of impartiality must be taken by a journalist when it is to uphold the truth. Holding to confidentiality agreements with sources is important, but even those agreements are upheld by reasonable authoritative laws. The matter at hand was to get to the truth about Libby’s charges. Revealing who Miller had received information from about Plame’s identity would have helped in coming to those conclusions. According to Parent’s “Privacy, Morality, and the Law,” "privacy is not receiving significant legal protection" and is limited to "autonomy or control over significant personal matters" (105, 95). A person has a legal responsibility for what they say. Furthermore, the allegations against Libby were a matter of national concern, not merely a person's private personal matters. My choice to reveal my source would undoubtedly result in losing the trust of many potential sources who would leak information for important stories. But then again, I think the truth will always surface regardless if one leaks something to me off the record. I would not want to find myself protecting someone who maliciously gossips just so they’re opponent can be publicly humiliated without my source taking any responsibility.