Okay, I totally agree with the statement that “The protection of sources is critical to the free flow of information in a democracy.” and I support the passage of a federal shield law for journalists, but can we try to narrow down what constitutes a “source”? It was my understanding that Matt Cooper and Judith Miller were among the reporters tipped off about Plame by the White House traitor, but didn’t write about it (apparently Bob Novak was the only person in Washington sleazy enough to take the bait). If the illegal leak of a White House traitor wasn’t the basis of an article by Miller or Cooper, what makes this person a “source” that requires protecting? By this definition, can anyone who talks to a reporter be considered a “source”? Or perhaps the person in question leaked information earlier for an unrelated story. Even then, shouldn’t a reporter’s loyalty be based on the specific stories rather than a blanket protection for any criminal wrongdoing that may occur? It’s incredible to me that these two reporters would go to such extremes to protect their relationship with a leaker when the anonymous “source” in question was trying to exploit his/her relationship with the press in order to seek revenge against a political foe. These two are covering up for a criminal on the basis of shielding a source to stories that were never written. Yeah, todays SCOTUS ruling may be a bad precedent, but I can’t help but agree with it in terms of this specific case.

UPDATE : Atrios chimes in with a similar opinion :

The ability to maintain source confidentiality should not hinge on what one’s job description is. A journalist should not and cannot have blanket immunity from ever testifying in court about what they know. That’s an abuse of a privilege, and the kind of abuse which tends to lead to the limitation of the scope of that privilege.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Plame case situation crosses the line between maintaining source anonymity and covering up a crime. Certainly I sympathize with those who believe that any erosion of press freedom should be of concern. But the self-righteous claims of absolute privilege ring rather hollow in this case.

I also liked this comment from a reader over at TPM Cafe :

Of course, Miller & Cooper believe that they should not have to comply with a lawful subpoena because they have an absolute, unfettered privilege to never reveal a source to whom they have promised confidentiality, no matter what the source’s crime or what the source’s motivation, and no matter whether that information is available from any other source and no matter how critical it is to a prosecutor’s case. In short, they ask for an absolute privilege that would be pretty rare in the law. I’m a lawyer, for example, and my clients’ communications to me don’t get that sort of absolute treatment.

Cooper and Miller seem to have plenty of defenders out there, but I have yet to see anything to convince me that their covering up for an anonymous source is defensible in this particular case.