Often, listening to the news or reading the newspaper, I find myself thinking that the logic I follow is oddly, puzzlingly, different from others'. I sometimes consider simply stoppping trying to follow the news stories on the theory that I'm mentally sub-par. Today's example is the Judith Miller incident. She said she'd been told Something Very Important by someone insisting on anonymity. When told by a court to reveal her source so the veracity of the "SVI" could be reviewed, she refused, taking imprisonment as an acceptable price to pay for the cost of defending journalistic integrity. Okay so far. But it turned out that (a) the "SVI" had been quite publicly revealed both by the spouse of the person and by several other people (
which my logic says would obviate the need to keep quiet) and (b) the source had specifically told her she was free to reveal who he was (
which my logic says would dissipate the whole thing). So why did she insist on keeping quiet and spending several months in jail? Is she doing a story on white color jail? was she seeking publicity for an upcoming book? did she want to cast bad light on someone? did she want to be in protective custody for an entirely different reason like being chased by Far East gangsters running illegal tea bags (just kidding)? or — what?? Or is it simply an indication that I am actually, albeit regrettably, stupid?
Update: Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post
is as puzzled as I am but posits the idea that this was a way to transform herself "into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom". It's beyond me why being a hero is worth spending months in a
jail cell. So reprieve my questions at the end of the previous paragraph.
Labels: modern culture, reflections
< home >