Those who doubted that the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller would have repercussions beyond the grand jury investigation that has resulted in her imprisonment - for refusal to divulge the identity of a confidential source - are already being proven wrong.

Out of Cleveland has come word that the Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, is holding two investigative stories based on leaked documents because they could result in the type of court showdown that led to Miller's jailing.

The public is not served when news media fear reporting important stories because of the potential for an eventual court fight and the prospect that a reporter might have to go to jail in defense of the public's right to know. A tails-between-their-legs stance on the media's part, if allowed to become predominant, will only provide a window for uninhibited wrongdoing on all levels of government, particularly on the federal and state levels.

That is not to imply that the media should overly rely on anonymous or confidential sources. The media must "go the extra mile" to try to confirm information with sources willing to speak on the record.

However, the sensitivity of some stories makes acquisition of on-the-record sources impossible, and then it becomes the responsibility of top editors, publishers and other media executives to weigh the potential implications facing their reporters and their news operations against the importance of public knowledge of information in question.

Citizens who have increasingly embraced the belief that, to public servants, the public's best interests have become secondary to the officials' own interests should feel uneasy about what has happened to Miller and what is happening in Cleveland. If the troubling situation currently evolving - as depicted by the Plain Dealer - had been in play following the Watergate break-in, the full Watergate story might never have been told.

In a column June 30, six days before Miller was jailed, Doug Clifton, Plain Dealer editor, explained to readers why it is important to protect sources, and how the public would suffer if reporters' ability to gather news were compromised. He also mentioned the potential consequences if the Plain Dealer published the two investigative stories in question.

He said leaked documents tied to those stories could result in subpoenas and court sanctions, including jail.

He said the newspaper was trying to find a way to publish the stories without relying on the documents in question.

A troubling fact surrounding Miller's plight is that she never wrote a story based on the information that she received from a confidential informant; she refused to divulge her source's identity to the grand jury investigating the Bush administration's leak of an undercover CIA operative's name. Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime.

Americans can debate whether the CIA operative's name should have been divulged by the media, but those same Americans should be reluctant to condemn reporters who are willing to go to jail, if necessary, to protect the public's right to know.

No one should become a journalist unless he or she is willing to make that sacrifice, just like no one should seek public office if he or she has a problem with the First Amendment right of freedom of the press.

It is an affront to Cleveland readers that two important investigative stories might never see the light of day because of the fear of a court battle. To some Americans, it may be an affront if President George W. Bush does not carry out his initial promise to fire anyone found to have leaked the CIA operative's identity.

Karl Rove, one of the president's closest confidants and the man Bush has described as the architect of his re-election, has been identified as at least one of those sources.

The Miller case is a serious test of press freedom. A total of 31 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources, but there is no federal protection, although Congress is considering such a bill.

It is in America's best interests for Congress to pass such a law, and it is in Cleveland's - and America's - best interests for the Plain Dealer not to lead an exodus from investigative journalism.