Now I’m even more confused about
Pajamas Open Source Media. I just tuned in from Munich to their Rockefeller Center event and they’re into a panel about fashion. The first person says she doesn’t blog and thinks blogging is absurd and never reads them and is liberal and feels like Ann Coulter in a room of Democrats. What is it with the fashion? How is this going to be open source? What did they need $3.5 million for once the lunch is paid for? Oh, and by the way, are they paying Judy Miller to speak? What’s it all about, Alfie?
: And now they’re entering into a politics panel with the oh-so-fresh question: Who’s a blogger?
Perhaps they should have called it Brigadooon Media.
: It’s getting more and more absurd: Now on the webcast, as they file out to lunch, there’s a combo playing Making Whoopee.
No, they got rid of the guy who was doing that.
: The sound has gone off. I was going to blog Judy and Glenn. Instead, it’s late over here and I’m going to dinner. I’ll try to record the feed in case it starts up again.
: I’m hearing a bit of Miller. She describes the scene in prison as “a bad c movie: bad girls in jail.” She says that none of her other sources, whom she sought to protect from “fishing expeditions” in the grand jury, did not discuss the Plame affair; I hadn’t heard that before and wonder why it was an issue. She says Drudge, Salon, et al are becoming “virtual MSM” facing the same challenges as big media, including “questions about their reliability,” business, and government pressure. She complains about some blogs: “The most irresponsible of them conjuring up million-dollar book contracts that I did not have, unfortunately, and still do not have.” She said some bloggers were “vicious and irresponsible.”
She talks about the shield law in Congress and how it should cover more than msm journalists but can’t cover all. Then she suggests how bloggers should get covered: “Bloggers who want to be part of the MSM club… are going to have to start abiding more religiously… to certain rules of the road… that would have prevented some of the stories that were circulated about me.” It’s all about Judy. She then presents five rules:
1. Be honest about how you are and what your agenda is and who’s funding you. She says we “don’t have to look far” to find examples of bloggers who are now. Who, Judy? I hope someone presses that. If you’re going to throw out that accusation, back it up with facts. Good reporting, you know.
2. Try to reach the subjects of stories for comment before publishing. “This is journalism 101.” But here’s web 102, Judy: those sources as often as not can and do respond on their own sites.
3. If a subject denies what you say and has evidence, “say so; it might actually be true.”
4. If you make a mistake admit it. Ohhhh, boy, isn’t that the juicy one. How come it took you so long to admit your mistakes? And have you yet fully? She said the Times does this through editors’ notes and she doesn’t entirely approve of them.
5. If you are wrong, keep going until you get it right.
Jay Rosen is asking a question and we cannot hear on the webcast. DAMN!
It ends with Rosen saying her case would not have been covered by the federal shield law as it stands. She said her lawyer thought she would be.
: LATER: I asked Jay and he emailed me what he said:
I asked her why she continued to speak out for a federal shield law before journalism groups, legal groups, television audiences and Congress without mentioning that her case would not have been covered by the law’s protections; and I reminded her that Bill Keller agreed (he said it on the PBS Newshour) she would not have been covered, which is why he described her action as civil disobedience: what you do when you run out of legal protections.
Why would you not mention that? I asked (adding that her remarks today were a perfect example) especially since it bears on the question of how good a spokesperson you are for the law.
Her answer? Same answer she gives anytime she is in a jam. Keller is wrong. I am wrong. Her case would be covered, and her lawyer told her so. The only exceptions, she said, are urgent matters of national security.
Basically, this is a falsehood. Everyone knows there is never going to be a federal shield law without an exception for revealing the identity of an intelligence agent (which can cause death to those under cover.) This is one of the reasons (but there are several others) her case would not have applied. “It’s not the only thing I disagree with Bill Keller about,” she said with a chuckle. What’s amazing is that Keller made his comments in July when he was still strongly defending Miller and speaking of her actions with a certain awe.