Judith Miller, the New York Times journalist who was jailed for refusing to divulge her sources, has an interesting take on the the new tourniquet being applied to the profession. Miller’s article about another contempt of court case, appeared today in The Wall Street Journal.

Coincidentally, the pressure is being applied elsewhere this week. Senator John McCain’s campaign is questioning the veracity of the story that appeared in the Times, about his alleged relationship with a lobbyist. The McCain “hit piece” as it is now being called, seems to have taken a turn; it is now a story about the New York Times itself. (The paper reported that more than 2000 comments had come in, critical of the article.) One McCain aide referred to the Times, which oddly endorsed McCain, as the “national inquirer,” suggesting that the much more had been expected in the post-Judith Miller world.

The Arizona Republic quotes an ASU professor, Michael Rubinoff, who thinks this might be more more than a “small radar bleep,” considering the momentum McCain has right now.

Interestingly, the editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, James Mccumber wrote that he didn’t carry the McCain story in his paper because it was flawed, and was “pretty thin beer.”