New York Times reporter Judy Miller is still behind bars for refusing to divulge sources in the Plame/CIA/maybe Rove matter. Some people, of course, have always felt she should be jailed because the enforcement of various espionage-related laws is of greater importance than whatever principle of the Free Press she is protecting. Others, who believe no reporter should ever be incarcerated for protecting a source, have come to her defense. But as I read various members of the media who hold that latter position, I sure get the feeling that sentiment is moving away from that point-of-view; that they're starting to think they should be arguing that Ms. Miller is not fighting for any worthwhile tenet of journalism.
I guess I feel about her the way I feel about Robert Novak. I am amazed that she still had a career — at the New York friggin' Times, of all places — after writing so many Iraq-related stories that turned out to be sheer, untrue administration propaganda. I dunno why so many pro-Bush people hate the Times after all the front page stories they obligingly published, most of them written by one Judith Miller, telling us that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction ready to use on the U.S., and was on the verge of getting more. The stories were dead wrong and the Times has since done much (though not enough) to correct the record…
…but no one fired Judy Miller.
No one got fired in the Bush-Cheney administration for being wrong about that, either — including Bush and Cheney. There seems to be an odd sentiment in America today that if you screw up royally — even if it gets people killed — that's okay, just so long as you didn't engage in deliberate deception. If someone lies, that's bad. But if they're just inept, that's okay…and how dare anyone accuse them of lying?
I think we need to carry this principle into other areas of life. For instance, let's say your doctor tells you that your right leg has to be amputated and that's done. Then you find out later that you just had bad Athlete's Foot, and a good dose of Lamisil would have fixed everything. I think in this case, you should say, "That's all right. The doctor didn't lie to me. He actually did think my right leg had to come off so he was acting in good faith. I think I'll let him examine the other leg."
Or let's say an air traffic controller makes an honest mistake…or how about an auto manufacturer whose cars explode? I think we can all come up with examples. Being wrong doesn't usually make you a bad person but it also doesn't mean you should still be in that job.
All the polls are telling us that Americans are drifting to the view that George W. Bush is not a very good president. Acccording to this one, which isn't even the worst, only 42% think he's doing a good job as president and only 38% think he's handling Iraq the right way. His numbers for "honesty and integrity" are a bit higher but they're also headed to historic lows. I think those are the numbers to watch. Because a certain portion of this country doesn't care if you botch things up so long as they feel your heart's in the right place.