Judith Miller

New York, June 30: A celebrated reporter for The New York Times who refuses to reveal her sources is defiantly facing the possibility of prison next week over an article that she did not write.

Judith Miller, 57, has become a journalistic cause celebre for refusing to disclose her sources.

She was one of two journalists originally sentenced in October to up to 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to co-operate with a grand jury investigating the public naming of a covert CIA employee. The other journalist, Matthew Cooper, of Time magazine, may be spared a prison sentence because his employer, itself facing daily $1,000 fines for contempt, reluctantly agreed today to turn over his reporting notes to settle the case, a step that Cooper had hoped that Time would not take.

The magazine said: “The same constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity.” The New York Times said today it was deeply disappointed by Time Inc’s decision. After a Supreme Court’s decision on Monday not to review the case, the two reporters face a crucial hearing yesterday.

The case stems from an opinion piece in The New York Times in 2003 by Joe Wilson, a former US diplomat, who questioned President Bush’s assertion that Iraq had sought material for nuclear weapons in Africa. Wilson said that he had found no such evidence on a mission to Africa for the CIA.

About a week later Robert Novak, a prominent conservative columnist, reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. A criminal investigation was undertaken to determine whether the leakers had broken the law by naming a covert CIA agent.

Cooper did not write about the controversy until after Novak had named Plame, and Miller never wrote about the topic although she did doing some reporting on the story.

Novak, who has avoided the threat of jail, said this week that it was wrong for the government to jail journalists. He promised to “reveal all” once the case is closed. Journalists’ organisations have said that the case will have a chilling effect on free speech, and The New York Times, in a leader column, opined: “The jailing of reporters for pursuing the truth rings particularly medieval in this information age.”

Miller said: “Journalists simply cannot do their jobs without being able to commit to sources that they won’t be identified.”