Violating my own rules...

OK, I know I've said I'll never talk about work, but this came up in the comments on a post at Stewie's blog, and I was asked for my thoughts on the matter.

So I found myself writing about a million lines, I decided to put them up over here, rather than clutter up Stewie's blog comments.

First of all, let me say (AGAIN!), these opinions are my own, no one else's, not my employer's, and do not necessarily reflect any of my employer's policies.

Second, the issue in question is the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller. I don't know her, I don't work for the Times, and most of what I know I've read in the paper or seen on CNN like everybody else. Most of the facts I'm citing in my reply, I got from CNN.com.

Third, if you want any of this to make sense, the first thing you have to do is read Stewie's post on the matter. Go do that now, then come back.

OK, done reading? Read the comments, too? Go do that, too. It'll help with the context.

OK, NOW you're done? Good. Here's my reply:

First of all, my gut instinct is to decline to comment, citing conflict of interest.

Secondly, it should be noted that neither reporter in question is the one who actually revealed the name of the CIA operative first. That was Bob Novak. Why he wasn't charged, I don't know.

Third, the case isn't a question of who published the name - in fact, the Times reporter who went to jail never even wrote an article on the subject.

The issue at hand is whether or not these journalists needed to reveal their sources to the grand jury investigating who leaked the name of the CIA operative to the media. The person who the grand jury is after has nothing to do with the media, and the contempt of court charge is based on the premise that they are refusing to testify about what they know.

The belief, of course, would be that the source leaking the information would be prosecuted for revealing the name of the operative and thus allowing it to be printed.

So the ethical question for journalists is twofold: One aspect, the one your post is covering, is whether or not you print information that could put a life in jeopardy. The problem is, the post's base logic is flawed in that this is not the reason the woman from the Times is going to jail.

The second half of the ethical question is this: Weighing a promise to a source of anonymity vs. the requirements of the law to reveal that source. This gets to things like attorney-client privilege, priests and what they hear in confession, and so forth.

Traditionally, journalists are adamant about keeping their sources' secrecy because of whistleblowing cases such as the Watergate/Deep Throat example, and many others. These are not the first journalists to face this dilemma, nor is she the first to go to jail.

Also, it was reported the Time mag reporter's source freed him from his promise of anonymity, so that reporter did testify - but would not name the source to the media outside (grand jury testimony being closed). Therefore, it would seem, that source is jeopardizing his/her own safety (because if he/she is the leak, he/she could be charged) rather than see the journalist suffer for a non-binding promise.

Understand, too, most newspapers, and I cannot imagine the Times is any different, have a policy by which some high-ranking editor knows the identity of any anonymous source in the paper. The Times hierarchy has thus made a conscious decision to back its reporter's stance.

To me, personally, it's a question of honor and professional responsibility vs. civil responsibility.

Without the promise of anonymity, some sources would never come forward to reveal great wrongs - witness the laws passed offering financial rewards for whistleblowing as evidence that it's difficult to get people to risk their lives or livelihoods without incentive or protection, even if they are doing the right thing.

And a man's word is his bond. I promise you anonymity, you're getting anonymity.

On the other hand, I find the publishing of an undercover agent's name reprehensible. However, again, that's not necessarily the issue in play here. Miller, the reporter jailed, never printed the name of the agent, for whatever reason. But in some cases, the question becomes what you reveal vs. the greater good - witness the trouble Geraldo got in while an embed over in the Middle East for saying where his unit was traveling, on the air.

I've never been in a position of having to deal with anonymous sources. So it's difficult for me to say what I would do in that situation and be fair to those in whose shoes I've never walked.

But I would say this: Every journalist I know has, in his own mind, a line drawn that he'd rather quit his job than cross. So I think that says no journalist makes a decision like the ones involved here lightly.

The problem with debating the premise at hand, as I said, is that the premise is flawed. You can debate the ethics of printing an undercover agent's name. You can debate the ethics of revealing anonymous sources. You can debate whether or not journalists are above the law, and whether or not this prosecutor is violating a longstanding tradition and whether or not that invalidates his moral stance. But in this case, the revealing of the name is not a cause and effect relationship with the jailing, and that voids the entire base argument of the post.

That's probably about eight or 10 cents instead of two, but there you have it. My opinion, such as it is.