It was odd, to say the least, to read what Teresa Kok and Oon Yeoh had to say about the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for not divulging her confidential sources of information in court.

Kok is a politician with the DAP but her letter was written with more of a concern for free press than Oon Yeoh, who, as he put it, has been a journalist for most of his life. And that is just for starters.

Kok's concern is that freedom of the press is undermined when reporters are forced to reveal their confidential sources. Reporters routinely depend on these sources for news reports (even here in Malaysia). There is a long standing view in the US that without confidential sources, many reporters would not be able to report a lot of things let alone bring to light stories that challenge the authorities.

While Kok had her heart in the right place for journalism, the problem is that she was quick to hold up Miller as a symbol for free and independent press. Why problem? Because Miller is known to present lies.

She contributed to the big lie when she wrote about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction at a time when the Bush administration was shoving that lie to the American public and the world to make its invasion of Iraq a defensive act.

While it might be questionable that the Bush administration needed Miller or the New York Times on its side, it nonetheless helped because the Times is considered a more liberal paper and often endorsed Democratic candidates for the US presidency.

Regarding Oon's response to Kok, it is superficial, naive. His basic argument is that, well, Miller broke the law. It is as cut and dry as that. Well, if so, Miller and the entire legal team of the New York Times must be morons.

Surely Oon must have known that Miller actually did not write the story leaking the name of the CIA operative Valerie Plame. Further, how come Robert Novak was not hauled up at all for the case? A columnist and a well-known staunch Republican, Novak was the first to write the story, citing two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as sources.

Then there was another Federal case on source confidentiality that was decided on in February. It, again, involved Miller, the defendant, and Patrick Fitzpatrick, the prosecutor. In that case, Miller was said to have received information from an unidentified source that the Bush government planned to raid groups believed to be funding terrorists.

Fitzpatrick argued that Miller's phone calls to the groups tipped them off to the raid and allowed them time to destroy evidence. Fitzgerald wanted Miller to reveal her phone records as a way to get at the confidential source that leaked the information to Miller in the first place. However, the judge rejected Fitzgerald, essentially upholding reporter's privilege to keep sources confidential.

Simply put, the issue of source confidentiality has always been a grey area in US journalism. Which means the issue is often approached on a case by case basis. For Oon to ignore all that indicates his naivete.

Ultimately, Miller's case is interesting and significant not because she represents freedom of the press as Kok suggested and certainly not because her case is a cut-and-dry legal issue as Oon would have it. Rather, investigative journalist Greg Palast came closest to capturing what it was about.

According to him, Miller was not willing to reveal her source because she wanted to have continued access to insiders in the Bush administration. People like Karl Rove, a close advisor of George W Bush.

But what's wrong with that? What's wrong, according to Palast, is that these insiders are not really confidential sources because they are not willing to put themselves on the line for truth. They are not interested in the truth to begin with. Instead, they are interested in using people like Miller and papers like the New York Times to help propagate lies for the Bush administration.

Miller's case is thus about how reporters can fall prey to sources close to power who present themselves as confidential sources in order to propagate their lies. It is hardly surprising considering the political climate spawned by the Bush administration that has not just dished out lies and deceptions but also fabricated them to begin with.