Ethics or Arrogance
By Michael Josephson

Last week, Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist,  went to jail for refusing to reveal the identity of a news source, while another reporter for Time magazine, Matthew Cooper, escaped a similar fate when his source called him at the last minute to release him from his pledge.

Almost every twist and turn of the case raises ethical issues and it's hard to tell the difference between ethics and arrogance.

It started when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent by President Bush to Niger to investigate whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium to make nuclear weapons. He concluded the allegations were unfounded and in July 2003 he publicly accused President Bush of distorting intelligence information to justify war with Iraq.

Days later, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative. Outraged that his wife's life and career were jeopardized, Wilson claimed high Bush officials leaked the information to punish him. The Bush administration denied involvement and pledged to fire anyone responsible for revealing Ms. Plame's identity. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether a crime was committed.

Facing jail for contempt, the reporters failed to convince the courts that the public importance of protecting anonymous informants justified their refusal to testify.

After an appeal was denied, Time magazine's editor, Norman Pearlstine, dismayed his colleagues by agreeing to turn over Cooper's notes. In contrast, Ms. Miller chose jail over compliance.

Revealing a similar ethical contrast, Cooper's source let him off the hook. Miller's source let her swing from the hook.