Sunday, May 15, 2005
What Dick Cheney and the New York Times have in common
Last Tuesday, a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to force Dick Cheney "to turn over the records of private meetings that his office held in 2001 to shape the administration's energy policy." Not surprisingly, the New York Times characterizes this as Dick Cheney's "right to conceal." The Times, staring at an 8-0 ruling by the circuit court of appeals, is calling for a change in the law to force future White House task forces to open their proceedings.
At the same time, the New York Times is defending the "right" of Judith Miller, one of its reporters, to refuse to testify in the Plame investigation.
In fact, Dick Cheney and the New York Times are fighting for the same principle.
Dick Cheney argued that if government were forced to disclose all conversations that it had in the development of legislation, many people with valuable advice or knowledge would refuse to participate if their identity were disclosed.
In other words, we need to protect the privacy of certain communications in order to ensure that the communication occurs at all.
This is precisely the same argument that the mainstream media makes in support of press shield laws. The press, including the New York Times, contends that it must be permitted to conceal its sources from prosecutors and other litigants so that those sources will talk to reporters without fear of reprisal.
In other words, we need to protect the privacy of certain communications in order to ensure that the communication occurs at all.
Of course, the Times would argue that its private communications involve exposing the activities of government to benefit the public interest, whereas Dick Cheney is trying to conceal the activities of government to benefit private interest. Obviously, one might plausibly argue precisely the reverse: that the New York Times is trying to profit from private communications to the benefit of its stockholders, and Dick Cheney is trying to preserve candor in government in the publiic interest.
The New York Times would be more persuasive in its editorial if it at least tried to distinguish its argument in the Judith Miller case from Dick Cheney's in the energy task force case. The problem is, any such distinction would be fine indeed.
At the same time, the New York Times is defending the "right" of Judith Miller, one of its reporters, to refuse to testify in the Plame investigation.
In fact, Dick Cheney and the New York Times are fighting for the same principle.
Dick Cheney argued that if government were forced to disclose all conversations that it had in the development of legislation, many people with valuable advice or knowledge would refuse to participate if their identity were disclosed.
"The president must be free to seek confidential information from many sources, both inside the government and outside," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In other words, we need to protect the privacy of certain communications in order to ensure that the communication occurs at all.
This is precisely the same argument that the mainstream media makes in support of press shield laws. The press, including the New York Times, contends that it must be permitted to conceal its sources from prosecutors and other litigants so that those sources will talk to reporters without fear of reprisal.
"We are deeply dismayed at the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to affirm holding Judith Miller in contempt, and at what it means for the American public's right to know," Times Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. said in a statement. "If Judy is sent to jail for not revealing her confidential sources for an article that was never published, it would create a dangerous precedent that would erode the freedom of the press."
In other words, we need to protect the privacy of certain communications in order to ensure that the communication occurs at all.
Of course, the Times would argue that its private communications involve exposing the activities of government to benefit the public interest, whereas Dick Cheney is trying to conceal the activities of government to benefit private interest. Obviously, one might plausibly argue precisely the reverse: that the New York Times is trying to profit from private communications to the benefit of its stockholders, and Dick Cheney is trying to preserve candor in government in the publiic interest.
The New York Times would be more persuasive in its editorial if it at least tried to distinguish its argument in the Judith Miller case from Dick Cheney's in the energy task force case. The problem is, any such distinction would be fine indeed.
0 Comments:
