Do we really want to silence the press?

The jailing of Judith Miller is an absolute disgrace. Somebody with influence has got to organize a drive to get Congress to pass the reporter's shield law this year. And it should be made retroactive to the first of 2004.

Whenever top characters in a government commit a crime, they have all the power necessary to cover it up. And if an insider provides a newspaper with otherwise hidden information about the crime, they face the entire power of the executive branch backed up by the judicial branch. Under these conditions only Congress and the press have the power to fight back.

The press has to get the ball rolling. Congress can then form a commitee and issue supeanoes. But the press is the first line of defense against governmental crimes that the government wants to hide. This is why reporters forbona fide news organizations occupy a special place in society. They must be free to report the facts they learn. And in some cases the source of the information about a crime may well be directly or indirectly involved in the crime himself.

So society is faced with a question. On the one hand society can support the government under all conditions--criminall or not--and force a reporter to jeopordize the source of the information about the crime. On the other hand, society can attack the crime of the government. Which is going to do more harm to society--a criminal goverrnment or the reporter who brings the crime to light and refuses to reveal the source?

http://www.thelittlegreenie.com