A martyr to the cause

New York Times reporter Judith Miller probably never purposefully set out to become a First Amendment martyr and a credit to the field of journalism, but the government is making it a lot easier for her.\nThursday, a federal judge declared Miller in civil contempt of court for her refusal to testify before a grand jury as part of the Justice Department's investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003. \nAlthough it is illegal to disclose the name of a covert U.S. agent, and potentiality dangerous for all parties involved, Novak wrote two "senior administration officials" outed Plame to him after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote an op-ed piece critical of President George W. Bush's claims that Iraq sought to obtain illegal uranium from Niger.\nAs a result, the Justice Department has launched a federal investigation to find whoever was responsible for the leak, and has been subpoenaing reporters for the identities of confidential sources to uncover the leak's source. \nTime magazine and one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper, were also held in contempt, but reached an agreement to drop the citation. Miller however, who gathered and investigated material for the Times piece but ultimately never wrote one, has refused to divulge any off-the-record information and discussions to the prosecutors to protect her sources' identities. As a result for her professional stubbornness, and in an attempt to break her vow of silence, Miller faces up to 18 months in prison for refusing to cooperate.\nIt might seem so easy. All Miller has to do is just cooperate and answer a few questions, and -- voila! -- she avoids prison time. After all, she just conducted interviews and never wrote the story. But the issue goes much deeper than that, and the lasting effects of such a cave-in would be potentially damning to Miller's career as a journalist and the entire profession of journalism.\nThe luxuries the First Amendment affords to journalists cannot and should not be undermined because it merely inconveniences the government. Confidential relationships -- the kind of sources that assist in blowing the whistle on corruption, allowing journalists do their job of performing a public service -- are an absolute necessity for reporters. \nIn the same way a husband can confide with his wife, a lawyer with his client or a preacher with his parishioner, the relationship between a reporter and her client should denote a protected status the government shouldn't breach. Confidential sources may soon dry up if they feel they could be easily outed by a journalist issued a subpoena by the government. The First Amendment becomes hollow if reporters are prevented from providing their vital public duty to inform because of any inconveniences the government may encounter. \nWhat does it say about journalists who easily stab their secret sources in the back because they feel threatened by the government? The government does not exist to keep the media in check; rather, the media functions as a "fourth estate" existing to keep the government in check.