Cleveland Plain Dealer holding stories due to Miller jailing

[RebelYell]

'Plain Dealer': We're Holding Big Stories Because of Fear of Jail <br><br>By Mark Fitzgerald <br><br>Published: July 08, 2005 5:02 PM ET <br><br>CHICAGO Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton says the Cleveland daily is not reporting two major investigative stories of "profound importance" because they are based on illegally leaked documents -- and the paper fears the consequences faced now by jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.<br><br>...<br><br>Clifton declined to characterize the two stories, saying only they were based on material that was illegally leaked.<br><br>Clifton's revelation that the PD was holding two investigative projects was actually first published in a column he wrote June 30 about the Miller and Cooper case. While the column garnered positive reaction, he said, almost nobody picked up on the disclosure tucked into the end of the piece. <br><br>(I searched for the June 30th piece and didn't find it)<br><br>"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"<br><br>Clifton said he wrote the column to show that "there are consequences" to the actions taken against Miller and Cooper by a federal judge and special prosecutor.<br><br>...<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000976374" target="top">www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000976374</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br> <br>via <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com" target="top">whatreallyhappened.com</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[seemslikeadream]

Thanks so much Ms. Miller<br><br>Your contributions to a free press are overwhelming. And all to protect a criminal. You must be so proud of your standards.<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.cursor.org.nyud.net:8090/images/iheartchalabi.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br> <br>"Judith Miller HAS named sources in the past"<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/922" target="top">newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/922</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->... <br><br>"When there is trouble, it appears she’s more than happy to pass around the responsibility. One incident that still rankles happened last April, when Miller co-bylined a story with Douglas Jehl on the WMD search that included a quote from Amy Smithson, an analyst formerly at the Henry L. Stimson Center. A day after it appeared, the Times learned that the quote was deeply problematic. To begin with,<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> it had been supplied to Miller in an e-mail that began, "Briefly and on background" -- a condition that Miller had flatly broken by naming her source. Miller committed a further offense by paraphrasing the quote and distorting Smithson's analysis.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->One person who viewed the e-mail says that it attributed views to Smithson that she clearly didn’t hold. An embarrassing correction ensued. " <br><br><br>http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/index2.html <p></p><i></i>

[Peachtree Pam]

Rebel Yell,<br><br>Some interesting info on Judith. I am happy she is in jail...she contributed so much to the death and destruction in Iraq today...<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002161.html">www.pnionline.com/dnblog/...02161.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[rain]

but is a diversionary side show, or a precursor for going after the real culprits? or, on the other hand, is it indicative of even more ominous moves? <p></p><i></i>

[heath7]

This boggles the mind.<br><br>They didn't have the press hogtied enough? Now reporters can't report because of liability?!<br><br>I'm reminded of a man Bush appointed to some office of governmental oversight, whose job is to review government whistleblower claims, and how this man has invalidated all of 'em. These whistleblowers were trying to let us know. Since their claims were squashed by the govenment they could go to the press, but now that's illegal and the press won't face the liability.<br><br>The courts have served we the people by destroying the press. We can speculate on our weblogs all we want, but that ain't free press. Free press is being open to the inner workings of our servant government. When they destroy that, then what are we to expect from such a hostile autocracy. I can imagine no remotely benign scenarios that deem such disconnection between the people and the state.<br><br>... This editor for the Plain Dealer holds out hope for publishing these 'profound' stories, and so do I. However, if the Plain Dealer is holding onto these stories, then many other outlets probably are as well, and if none of them can conjure the will to print them, what are we to believe is going to change their minds. Its all excuses and no action. This editor is trying to appear as some sort of hero, but he's just a chickenshit.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>