Editorial: Jailing of reporter signals danger to press' freedom

A federal judge ordered Wednesday that a reporter for the New York Times be imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to reveal sources in front of a grand jury. The federal grand jury is investigating whether a Bush administration official leaked a CIA agent's identity, which is a federal crime.

The decision to jail Judith Miller, the reporter, for refusing to identify a source, though not without precedent, is one that raises many questions regarding press freedoms, and might discourage the use and availability of anonymous sources, a controversial issue in itself.

This complicated and bizarre case is made even stranger by the fact that it was not Miller - nor Matthew Cooper, a Time Magazine reporter also threatened with jail time until he agreed to testify - who first reported the agent's identity two years ago.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak first revealed the agent's identity, in a column seen at the time as retaliation against the CIA agent's husband, Joseph Wilson, for embarrassing the Bush administration by debunking a claim made regarding Iraq's weapons programs.

Novak has not been threatened with jail time, and his level of cooperation with the grand jury investigation is unknown.

If this seems confusing, it is. What is clear is that the judge in this case is toeing a dangerous line, possibly pursuing a single criminal act to the detriment of the journalistic community.

As Cooper - who says he agreed to testify only after Time turned over his notes and e-mails against his wishes, and his source waived Cooper's responsibility - pointed out, the jailing of reporters should be a wake-up call to Congress to pass legislation protecting reporters' rights to protect sources. Such legislation would be vital to ensuring that sources are not discouraged from disclosing information Americans need to know from fear that a judge might someday bring them into the public eye. Such exposure could ruin careers and lives.

At a time when many are remembering the role one anonymous, deep-throated source played in this nation's history, it seems foolish to make it harder for others in a similar position to act. A press that is not able to protect sources can only hurt a democracy that so centrally depends on the free flow of information to the public.

Chris Narkun

Opinion editor