Poynter Online
Go


Top Story

Public TV, Radio Stations to Increase Local Investigative Coverage
Most Recent Articles
Most E-mailed
Recent Comments
Recent Tags
Community Activity

Poynter Training
Poynter Seminars
Small, in-person training experiences.
News University
Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists.
Webinars
Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more.
All Webinars

Poynter Forums

View Forum Post

Topic: Miscellaneous items
Date/Time: 6/27/2005 10:33:46 AM
Title: New York Times on Supreme Court's 6/27 decision
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
 
Statement From The New York Times

We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s determination not to review this very vital and controversial case; we fully support the position of Judith Miller and her decision to honor the commitment she made to her sources.

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times, said, "It is shocking that for doing some routine newsgathering on an important public issue, keeping her word to her sources, and without our even publishing a story about the CIA agent, Judy finds herself facing a prison sentence. That 49 states and many countries around the globe provide broad protection for journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, makes today’s decision even more disappointing. And it is doubly painful that the Court rejected our case in the face of the plea of 34 state attorneys general, prosecutors who normally seek journalists’ evidence, that anonymous sources are critical to provide information to the public.”

Judith Miller said, “I am extremely disappointed. Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won’t be identified. Such protection is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy."


View Complete Forum Topic

Username
Password
New User? Signup Now
Poynter Careers
More media jobs