NY Times lecturer sparks debate

Author: Laura Barrett

Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times, gave a lecture entitled "The Assault on Journalism" on Monday, Oct.17 in Twilight Auditorium. Abramson spoke about the consequences of legally requiring journalists to break confidentiality agreements with anonymous sources.

Abramson concentrated on the case of Judith Miller, a long-time reporter for The Times. Miller was one of several reporters to whom some details about an undercover CIA operative were leaked, although she never wrote a story using that information. She was subpoenaed, but rather than revealing a confidential source, she went to jail for almost three months. Abramson and The Times stood behind Miller's decision, citing the First Amendment and the need for truly confidential sources.

Abramson claimed, "Confidential sources are at the heart of journalism," explaining that in many important stories in the past, such as Watergate, critical information would never have been revealed if the sources did not have the assurance of confidentiality. If employees knew that their names could easily be discovered by the employers they had exposed, Abramson fears those employees would not be willing to speak out at all.

When asked to respond to Miller's claim that she had proposed a story about the CIA agent and her husband, Abramson said, "I just flatly contradict it." Abramson was Miller's editor at the time, and Abramson said that Miller never proposed such a story to her and that Miller would not have reason to mention the idea to another editor. Generally, Abramson stood behind The Times' official position of supporting Miller.

Although some people have criticized The Times for supporting Miller's decision to go to jail rather than reveal her source, Abramson said that this decision was a matter of journalistic principle. To accusations that this response indicates that the newspaper considers itself above the law, Abramson replied that Miller went to jail as the law required.

People filled the auditorium, lining the aisles to hear the lecture. Abramson spoke only for about half an hour, leaving plenty of time for questions. Professor Carol Rifelj, who invited Abramson to speak, was glad that there were "people from the community, students and faculty there, asking a variety of questions, some more pertinent than others...but generally very good questions."

When asked how important it is to provide balanced coverage of both sides of an issue when one side has more evidence supporting its position, Abramson said that a balanced report does not necessarily guide intelligent readers well. She also said, however, "We try not to be arrogant in silencing voices."

Abramson's talk was the annual Robert W. van de Velde, Jr. '75 Memorial Lecture, designed to address the confluence of public affairs- and journalism.

This lecture series was established in 1981 in memory of van de Velde by family and friends.

Abramson was one of two New York Times lecturers to speak on campus this month. New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus spoke Tuesday in McCardell Bicentennial Hall on "Iraq, Katrina and Other Disasters: Book Reviewing and the Culture Wars." During the event, one of the College's "Meet the Press" series, Tanenhaus spoke briefly on his job and fielded questions from the audience.