Judith Miller Coerced?

The phrase "Words mean things" comes to my mind often when I hear liberals argue with conservatives.

The latest version is that the NY Times and Judith Miller claim that her source was "coerced" to sign a general release of that person's confidentiality with reporters.

This is the latest attempt by the MSM to treat journalism as an extension of the justice system. Journalism is not part of the justice system, and cannot ever be yet function.

Part of this problem arises by the number of attorneys entering journalism. They use legal terms and logic (by and large better than J-school graduates). J-school grads then want to look like they are acquainted with the rules of logic and syllogisms. (I know, I know. Everyone's favorite media huckster Geraldo Rivera fits this bill, too.) Here is where the fun begins.

Miller's argument for ignoring her source's release is that the source was coerced. She and the Times claim that the Administration insisted that everyone inside it sign a general release for this investigation. The coercion is what? That failing to sign the release would cause the source to lose his/her job? Is that coercion?

To coerce is defined by lay dictionaries as, " To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."

This coercion defense is brought up by many non-lawyers in court. Here are some questions to consider: is it coercion that a woman on the side of the road with a broken down car is required to pay for having her car towed? The towing company may "threaten" not to move her car unless she agrees to pay. The woman feels "compelled" to agree.

Is it coercion when I go to the hardware store and I want to buy material to buildout my basement but I don't want to pay what the store wants me to pay. If I start carrying out material without paying the store's list price, the store manager will surely threaten to have me arrested if I do not "act . . . in a certain way": pay first, carry out second.

This definition of coerce just does not make any sense in determining a person's moral obligations. Since we have no "moral dictionary" (yes, the Bible provides guidance, but I am not doing an exegesis on the Bible here).

The key definition that we need to consider is that in one edition of Black's Law Dictionary. Black's works better since its definitions, as revised over the decades, are actually tested for functionality in real world situations. Black's defines "coercion" as,

1. Compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force. An act such as signing a will is not legally valid if done under coercion. 2. Conduct that constitutes the improper use of economic power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it."

Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., p. 252 (West Group 1999). Note that the first definition is interested in physical threats. While loss of a job does not automatically disqualify from falling within the second definition, we must look deeper. The key is that the conduct (e.g., firing a non-compliant employee) is "improper."

Certainly the Times is not claiming that its source has been physically threatened. The Times is claiming that it is improper for a president to tell his staffers in the White House to cooperate with a criminal investigation or risk losing his/her job?

Miller's defense is completely unsupportable in a legal sense. Even after attempting to use the lay dictionary definition, we find that, while the behavior in question may fit the definition, the definition is impractical to provide any guidance.

This is a perfect example of what the MSM does every day in blurring definitions of legal terms and trying to apply them outside of courts. They use legal terms that sound very damaging to the subject of the MSM's attack. Yet, they fail to properly apply the terms in a legalistic manner. If a critic point this out to the MSM, the MSM would claim literary license and claim that the MSM doesn't intend to use the legal version.

I would suggest that the MSM should be held strictly accountable by bloggers and other critics for using legal terms by analyzing the MSM's statements and headlines using Black's Law Dictionary. If the MSM wants to have more freedom to express themselves in a non-legal context, they have plenty of room to maneuver. As I understand it, the English language has the largest vocabulary of any language. Every middle school English teacher would tell you that there are many synonyms in English. Use them. The MSM could have used "compel" or "forced" or "strong armed." Each has a similar meaning without the legalistic baggage.

They won't though. They want to bluff the layman into believing their storyline because "coercion" sounds legalistic and, therefore, justifiable reason to ignore Miller's source's release.

If they want to use the law as a cover, they should have to justify their actions strictly within the law. No changing contexts as the whim strikes them.