Jailbird Journalists

Husband-and-wife journalists Bob Miller and Callie Clark Miller share the same small house, tiny bathroom and even the same office. But not always the same opinion. The Southeast Missourian sweethearts offer their views on every-day issues, told from two different perspectives.

SHE SAID: Judith Miller is in jail today for a story she didn't write.

Miller is a common name. We're not related. Yet somehow I kind of feel we are. Because, as a fellow journalist, I can put myself in her place all too easily.

As many of you know, Miller is the New York Times reporter who refused to reveal an anonymous source before a grand jury. Her source identified a CIA spy. Even though Miller never actually wrote a story about that, outing a spy is illegal. So is refusing to testify before a grand jury, apparently.

I'm too far removed from that sort of issue to truly appreciate Miller's plight. Chances are I'll never cover a story that involves CIA secrets. But the overall issue of protecting a source's anonymity is one a journalist in any market faces.

After reading about Miller's decision, my first reaction was one of support. This reporter made a promise and she is keeping it. Period.

But then I thought, could unwillingness to compromise a source be a poor decision under different circumstances? For example, what if the source wasn't revealing a CIA spy? What if the source were someone who had kidnapped a child? Both are illegal. Both put someone in danger. I think most of us would find the decision to not reveal a kidnapper difficult to support. But a promise is a promise.

As journalists, should we have the right to distinguish between such scenarios? We're taught to be objective, even impersonal in our line of work.

Do the requirements for clear, unbiased writing conflict with a person's ability to decide when a source should be revealed, regardless of promises made? I don't know the answers to any of those questions. If I did, maybe I would be bumping heads with the CIA and covering other high-profile stories. As it stands though, I'll take the tranquility of Southeast Missouri news any day.

HE SAID: As a journalist, I've come across many anonymous sources. I have, on occasion, quoted them in stories to add a perspective. For instance, say the city of Jackson instituted a policy where police officers were forced to wear pink nail polish. I would consider using an anonymous source, but I would explain why the source did not want to be named.

"It will undermine our respect in the community," said one veteran police officer, who wished not to use his name for fear of losing his job.

I have used anonymous sources to explain how government negotiations are being handled. The Jackson interchange story was one of them. In such cases where people would not go on the record, I would confirm information with more than one source. But once I had the information, city officials would usually go on the record and explain the details.

There have been several potentially explosive stories I have not done because the story would have been built around an anonymous source and information that I knew to be true but could not be confirmed.

My personal policy on anonymous sources has changed as I've matured as a journalist. And I lean heavily on experienced editors. As I read about journalists going to jail for not naming sources, I continue to question my guiding principles.

I ask myself if I would be willing to go to jail to protect a source.

I think the more important question is what story would be important enough to put myself in that situation? I work on the copy desk now, so the issue won't come up as often as it used to. But I think the level of confidentiality should be worked out before anything goes to print.

First, it should be clear what "off the record" means.

Can information be used for background? Is it not for print at all? I don't think there are many stories I'd be willing to go to jail for, and I would have to let my source know that. If the source agrees, then I would be aggressive in trying to verify facts.

If the source doesn't agree, then the reporter has some serious soul searching to do. Is it worth going to jail (leaving a new wife and 7-year-old son behind) to expose government fraud? Let's say an anonymous source provides private documents or pictures that shows a local cop stuffing a child into the trunk of his police car. What if the FBI demands to know where you got the photos or documents? As I think about these questions, I'm not sure I'd be willing to go to the jail unless a safety factor was involved like the abducted-child scenario. As I type today, I don't know that I'd risk my freedom for exposing fraud. But I shouldn't underestimate the adrenaline rush that goes with breaking such a story.

Journalists play an important role in keeping governments in check. We are not above the law, but it is essential that responsible journalists be protected from prosecution.

Journalists all over the country are asking themselves these questions now. I fear that the long-range impact of the jail sentence could have a major impact. How major? Well, that's the point, isn't it? In many cases, no one will ever know the whole story.

Bob Miller is the news editor and Callie Miller is the features editor at the Southeast Missourian. Contact them at bmiller@semissourian.com or cmiller@semissourian.com.