Site icon journal-isms.com

Don’t “Rip Into Judy”

Advice for Journalists Covering Miller Case

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, has some advice for journalists watching the case of Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who testified before a federal grand jury today after spending 85 days in jail for refusing to disclose her sources:

“I would resist the impulse to rip into Judy and what she had to do,” Dalglish told Journal-isms. “It doesn’t get us anywhere. No matter what you think of Judy, we’ve got serious problems with reporters being legally allowed to protect their sources. We need to focus on the big picture.”

And: Remember that “this is just one of many subpoenas” that have been issued to press for journalists to disclose their sources, she said.

And: The federal shield law that the Times’ assistant general counsel, George Freeman, said “would have avoided all of this,” is still pending in Congress.

As David Johnston and Douglas Jehl reported this morning in the Times, “Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who has been jailed since July 6 for refusing to testify in the C.I.A. leak case, was released Thursday from a Virginia detention center after she and her lawyers reached an agreement with a federal prosecutor in which she would testify before a grand jury investigating the case.”

“The pillars of that agreement, she said, were an assurance from a news source that she could testify without violating his confidence, plus a promise from the federal prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, that her testimony to the grand jury would be limited in scope,” Johnston and Jehl wrote in a later story for the Times’ Web site.

Pete Yost of the Associated Press wrote today, “Miller said in a statement that her source — identified by the Times as Libby,” referring to Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby — “had released her from her promise of confidentiality.

“But Libby’s lawyer said today that he and his client had released Miller long ago to testify, and were surprised when Miller’s lawyers again asked for a release in the last few weeks.” That led some reporters to question why Miller felt compelled to go to jail.

Libby’s attorney, Arthur Tate, explained that “Miller’s lawyers called recently and said there was ‘a misunderstanding and Judy wanted to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth’ that Libby was releasing her to talk to the grand jury about their conversation,” according to Yost’s story.

Expanding on her statement that Miller was not the only threatened reporter, Dalglish said in a chat on washingtonpost.com that “in the last year, there have been more than 30 federal court subpoenas served on journalists asking for the identities of their confidential sources.”

One involves an African American, Pierre Thomas, a former CNN reporter who now works for ABC News, who with four other journalists have defied a federal judge’s order and refused to disclose the names of confidential sources who provided information about former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee.

Thomas has asked for a rehearing in federal court, his lawyer, Charles D. Tobin, told Journal-isms today. Other federal cases are listed on the Reporters Committee Web site.

Here’s another example: In August, a federal judge ruled that two York, Pa., reporters could be called to testify in a lawsuit against the Dover Area school district and its board over the teaching of “intelligent design,” but ruled the reporters’ notes and e-mails would not be made part of the trial. Judge John E. Jones III denied a motion by the reporters’ attorney to quash their subpoenas and said they could be called to testify about what they saw and heard at public meetings, the York Gazette reported.

The prospect of a federal shield law, a concept backed by journalists organizations including the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the Asian American Journalists Association, “looks good in the Senate,” Dalglish said, with the House waiting for Senate action before holding hearings.

Dalglish cautioned journalists about “waivers that the government passes out like candy and aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.”

“Here’s how they work,” she said on washingtonpost.com: “A government employee has valuable information about government malfeasance. Fearing repercussions within her agency, the employee seeks out a reporter in the hopes that once the public knows what’s going on the illegal or reprehensible behavior might end.

“Once in the spotlight, the government agency starts hunting for the ‘leaker.’

“An investigation is launched and someone in the agency’s office of the general counsel prepares ‘waivers’ for all employees to sign. The waivers say that you hereby release any reporter who ever made a promise of confidentiality to you from the promise.

“As a government employee, you probably have a choice: sign the waiver or lose your job. The agency (or prosecutor) then goes to the reporter and says, ‘You no longer have an obligation to your source. Talk to us or go to jail.'”

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

Bennett Not Alone in Equating Blacks With Crime

William Bennett, secretary of education in the Reagan administration and drug czar for the first President Bush, is being widely criticized for saying on a radio broadcast this week, “I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

He quickly added, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”

[Added Oct. 1: The National Association of Black Journalists called on Bennett “to make an immediate and complete apology and for the Salem Radio Network to drop the Bill Bennett’s ‘Morning in America’ radio show -? which appears on 115 radio stations including key markets such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta, Denver, Phoenix.”]

Some commentators countered that the crime rate would decrease if all white babies were aborted as well. But it’s worth noting that the idea of equating African Americans with crime goes far beyond Bennett, in part because of the news media.

Only this week, news organizations reported that most of the stories of atrocities committed by Hurricane Katrina evacuees at the Louisiana Superdome were unsupported, if not false.

“If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people,” said Times-Picayune Editor Jim Amoss in a Los Angeles Times story, “it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering.”

In a 1997 study, UCLA professors Franklin Gilliam Jr. and Shanto Iyengar found that television viewers were so accustomed to seeing African American crime suspects on their local news shows that they believed suspects were black even when no race was specified.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that, “at yearend 2003, black inmates represented an estimated 44% of all inmates with sentences of more than 1 year, while white inmates accounted for 35% and Hispanic inmates, 19%.” Disproportionately African American, to be sure, but not a majority.

Yet the painting of African Americans as criminals and thugs is embraced by many African Americans themselves, including consumers and publishers of magazines that glorify gangsta rap. Fortunately, not everyone is playing along.

Essence magazine editors said of their “Take Back the Music” campaign, “As the music has made the shift from art to corporate product, . . . much of it is now formulaic and monotonous, with pimp ideology at the forefront. Thus, the call to action in our name is for Black people to reclaim the culture from the corporate entities that now control its images and messages.”

Likewise, the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, N.Y., began a campaign in April urging readers to fill out “Take a Stand” coupons opposing gangsta rap, and pledged to send them to record companies, radio stations and such public officials as the Federal Communications Commission chairman and the New York attorney general.

“We estimate that nearly 3,000 readers have responded so far,” James F. Lawrence, editorial page editor, wrote late last month.

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

“I Write About Race . . . Because of Who I Am”

Warren Bolton, an associate editor at The State in Columbia, S.C., wrote today, “I regularly get calls from white readers asking why I ‘always’ write about race and issues important to black people.”

It’s a common observation by columnists of color. In fact, Bolton wrote, “If I had to put a number on it, I’d say fewer than a fifth of my columns might explore race or issues important to black people.”

Bolton also said: “Prior to my becoming the first black member of The State’s editorial board in 1997, many of the issues I write about didn’t make the page regularly, if at all. For me to be the first black editorial board member and neglect to raise important issues that cry for attention would be derelict on my part.

“When I write about race, I’m not writing just for black people. My intent is first to challenge myself, and then challenge readers to grow beyond where they are.

“Race is the gigantic elephant in South Carolina’s living room that no one wants to confront. We can deny that racial tension and misunderstanding have a grip on our state, but race is ever-present.”

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

Stark Contrast in Reactions to Katrina Response

While most Americans agree that the federal government dragged its feet in responding to victims of Hurricane Katrina, Black Americans are far more likely to believe that race was a factor in that slow response, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll analyzed for BET News, Renee D. Turner wrote Thursday on BET.com.

“When asked directly whether the race of those stranded affected officials’ response time, 68 percent of Whites polled said no, while 66 percent of African Americans said race was a ‘major factor.’ Only 12 percent of Whites said race was a major factor.”

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

5 Ways to Categorize Hispanic Consumers

Scarborough Research, which calls itself “the leader in identifying local, regional and national shopping patterns and media usage for the American consumer,” is dividing the Hispanic market into five key consumer segments, cautioning that, “Hispanics are not a homogeneous group and marketing efforts need to take into account their distinct demographic, media, shopping and lifestyle patterns,” in the words of James Collins, senior vice president for information systems.

The study, released Monday, identifies the five segments as:

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

“American Indian” Term Said Not to Refer to India

Veteran Native journalist Tim Giago set out this week to debunk the notion that the word “Indian” came from Christopher Columbus, who thought he had reached the East Indies.

“So where did this word ‘Indian’ derive?” Giago wrote in his “Notes from Indian Country” column. “The Spanish friars who accompanied the Italian navigator Columbus to the land he called The New World, although it was a world old to the indigenous people, were so enamored of the total trust and innocence of the inhabitants that in Spanish they called them Los ninos in Dios, The children of God. This was, of course, soon shortened to ‘Indios.’

“And even today, throughout South and Central America, the indigenous people are still called ‘Indios.’ As the European cultures bumped into each other in North America the name again changed to ‘Indian’ in America and Canada.”

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

“We Have to Hire a Hispanic for That Slot”

Former senator Jesse Helms, R-N.C., proved the potency of some whites’ resentment of affirmative action in 1990 when, in his re-election campaign against Harvey Gantt, an African American former mayor of Charlotte, Helms ran TV commercials showing a white hand crumbling an employment rejection letter.

“You needed that job,” the announcer said. “And you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that fair?”

Helms won.

This week, the debate played itself out on Slate.com and in the Romenesko forum on the Poynter Institute Web site.

The current round started when New Yorker writer Jeff Goldberg told Washingtonian magazine for a Sept. 23 column that he was denied a job at the Washington Post in the late 1980s after “an editor took him aside and said, ‘We would like to hire you, but we have to hire a Hispanic for that slot.'”

On Tuesday, Jack Shafer of Slate wrote that “when diversity plays a significant role in hiring it makes race the prism through which folks start viewing their jobs.”

Privately, Dele Olojede, the former Newsday foreign editor who won a Pulitzer this year, wrote Shafer, “I have traveled and lived all over the world, and I have yet to come in contact with anything ever done by anyone on the basis of ‘pure merit.’ Could it be the reason is there is no such thing?

“Your piece is final proof that race makes Americans crazy. Every white man attributes his own failure to some black person or woman. ‘I didn’t get the job because . . .'”

On Wednesday, Slate “Chatterbox” columnist Timothy Noah weighed in with, “I Am Goldberg: Years ago, the Times turned me down because I was white. So what?”

On the Romenesko Forums page, disgraced New York Times reporter Jayson Blair wrote, “For all those whose careers are doomed by diversity, I wish that God graces you with a consolation prize like a job at The New Yorker. I know, working at The Post and The Times, is such an honor, but you know, I’ve heard rumors that those gigs at The New Yorker are pretty good.”

From the New Yorker, writer and best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell wrote, “I was Jeff Goldberg’s room-mate and colleague at the time he was turned down for a full-time job at the Post. I remember the incident well. As I recall, a few months before, there was another intern — a black man — who was also turned down. He was a marvellously gifted reporter, but not a strong writer, and it was Jeff’s opinion at the time that he was precisely the kind of person the Post ought to have taken a chance on. . . .I was a diversity hire at the Post, for instance. I got a job in 1987 without any newspaper experience at all, and there are still people — myself among them — who are shocked by the gamble the paper took on me.”

“I’m reading these posts from men with great careers who said diversity hampered their career paths. Well, honey, I wish some of those obstacles had been sent my way,” wrote Afi Scruggs, who listed jobs for which she was turned down. She described herself as “a black woman with a Ph.D from Brown University, who made the switch from academia to writing in the 80s.”

Eric Deggans, media writer for the St. Petersburg Times and president of the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists, said, “Why don’t editors just stop telling people this stuff — because it rarely describes the whole story. All you’re really doing is undermining the next staffer of color who will walk through your doors.”

Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie and Managing Editor Philip Bennett expressed their support for diversity in internal comments picked up by Shafer. “I’m sorry that someone who long ago failed to make the grade here would attack our diversity efforts,” Downie wrote.

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

Short Takes

MESSAGE BOARDS: Feel free to post a comment on this subject and view those from others.

Exit mobile version