The other thing in The Week that caught my eye, so far, is this editorial (the editors only take two paragraphs each week for their own opinions) from managing editor (and former Brill's Content contributor) Eric Effron, on the subject of reporter's privilege and public disdain for the profession.

Journalism’s low standing comes at a bad time for The New York Times’ Judith Miller and Time magazine’s Matt Cooper. The Supreme Court this week let stand a court order demanding that they name their sources, or face 18 months in jail. The sources helped them piece together stories after columnist Robert Novak revealed that the wife of a prominent Bush critic was a CIA agent—a leak apparently intended to punish the critic. A federal prosecutor is trying to smoke out the leaker. It’s a complicated saga that defies ideological pigeonholing, but this much is clear: Miller and Cooper have declined to name names - because they promised their source confidentiality, and because doing so could deter future whistle-blowers from coming forward. This is not a case of the press being too critical, or too soft, or biased, or unethical, or lusting after an audience. Rather, it’s a case of two reporters willing to go to jail to keep their word and stand up for principle. What’s a press-basher to think?

Anyone, not just a press basher, is to think that they're idiots.

As a people, we grant reporters the privilege of not revealing their sources in testimony to protect those who would expose corruption at the highest levels of society. Cooper and Miller are instead abusing this privilege to protect corruption at the highest levels of government. They are ignoring the purpose of the privilege - and, indeed, the entire reason for having a free press - to avoid losing access to Bush administration officials that makes their jobs easier.

No one in this case is anything close to a "whistle-blower," Mr. Effron. The administration outed Valerie Plame to punish her husband for the crime of telling the truth about yellowcake, Nigeria, and Iraq. Cooper, Miller, and dozens of other journalists know who did it but will not tell. They think that the reporter's privilege should be unqualified, as if they were doctors, lawyers, or ministers providing their services to individuals. But unlike those jobs, where ethics require that those people never reveal confidential information, reporters want the right to do so selectively, when they feel it's worthy.

That would put them above the law, with no responsibility to anyone other than themselves, Mr. Effron. It would certainly make their jobs easier, but society has no vested interest in that. You and the other members of the "no reporter must ever go to jail" brigade should remember that there is widespread judicial, legislative, and public support for protecting whistle-blowers - just not for protecting people using the press to commit crimes.