Times and Reporter (Miller) Reach Agreement on Her Departure

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/business/09cnd-judy.html?hp&ex=1131598800&en=c19400abb8be305c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The New York Times and Judith Miller, a veteran reporter for the paper, reached an agreement today that ends her 28-year career at the newspaper and caps more than two weeks of negotiations.

... Lawyers for Ms. Miller and the paper negotiated a severance package whose details they would not disclose. Under the agreement, Ms. Miller will retire from the newspaper, and The Times will print a letter she wrote to the editor explaining her position. Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper's Op-Ed page refuting the allegations against her. The Times refused that demand - Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, "We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another" - but agreed to let her write the letter.

In that letter, to be published in The New York Times on Thursday under the heading, "Judith Miller's Farewell," Ms. Miller said she was leaving partly because some of her colleagues disagreed with her decision to testify in the C.I.A. leak case.

"But mainly," she wrote, "I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be."

more

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=10616

Times executive editor Bill Keller's memo

To the Staff:

Judy Miller has retired from The New York Times effective today.

In her 28 years at The Times, Judy participated in some great, prize-winning journalism. She displayed fierce determination and personal courage both in pursuit of the news and in resisting assaults on the freedom of news organizations to report. We wish her well in the next phase of her career.

good riddance... the time you spent in jail wasn't enough for all the lying you did.

:rofl:

She can help them write propaganda

Don't cry for Judy - she'll be rewarded handsomely.

Guilt can be a very long curse. Can she go to her grave knowing that her deceit caused the lives of so many innocent people?

Faux "News"?

.

Doing time in the Hague

don't people usually give some sort of notice before they retire

wonder if she was really canned

And since she is retiring no doubt there is a NYT pension involved.

It's pretty standard for a severance agreement to include nicey-nice language for public consumption; helps the departed save face. Not that Miller deserved that, but on the back end of things, it also saves the NYT a potential lawsuit from Miller. I'm just glad she's gone.

...usually how it works for such high profile people.

she's retiring to spend more time with her family and yadda, yadda, yadda.

The key is that they reached an agreement. Retirement doesn't usually require an agreement with your company. No matter what they choose to call it, Judy was kicked to the curb.

Few deserve it more than she does.

What will she become? A journalist?

:D

No deep fryer for her.

is beautiful, just beautiful!

Judy does friars and fyers! Man or potato it is all the same to that *journalist* of political porn. Miller can write something tawdry with her other corrupt republican bud, Libby! They can collaborate about jail. :rofl:

That's what counts.

;-)

laughs. :thumbsup: :-)

at the Podunk Pennysaver.

A media whore moves on from print at a good paper to Fox or somesuch.

Idda baked a cake. So long kid. You sure made a mess of things.

Precious picture. :-D

and the sun shine on her back.

:)

The newsletter at the hard rock hotel

You know the house with many doors

Novel idea!

Not bloody likely. She's a little too old to be embarking on a career so different from the one she had. ;)

she will spend time in jail with Libby. They can be joined at the roots.

Poor bear.

:rofl::D:party::beer::toast:
YOU'RE...FIRED, YOU'RE FIRED, YOU'RE FIRED, FIRED, FIRED, FIRED!

Happy days are here again.:)

in the gutter!

:toast: :bounce: :woohoo:

He needs to go.

:hi:

Someone up thread made a good point that the NYT has to cover their corporate ass.

I won't be shedding a tear for you, Judy...

... in writing that announcement....

sign up for Iraq War.

you lying traitor.

because she damn well isn't a journalist.

brick that has been taken out of the Republican wall of noise!

PUBLICALLY and LOUDLY Fired her ass. Instead they let her "retire". What a load of crap. They get NO respect from me for this move. By allowing her to do it this way, they take NO responsibility for what she was allowed to do at the paper. Their credibility is further damaged by this move AFAIC.

And don't let the door hitcha where the good Lord splitcha!

A gold plated aluminum tube perhaps?

No one takes notes and regurgitates them as well as Steno Judy.

...except that the NYT has to pat her on the head before canning her. Maybe she can find a job writing about sex-obsessed alien invaders in one of those nice supermarket magazines. With a little perserverance and a Cliff Notes guidebook on actual journalism, she might just get hired!

Tee hee.

with Libby who can wax poetic. :puke: :puke:
She owes the US, the Iraqis and the WORLD and apology. The sick thing is that she'll get to cushy "reward" job at the AEI or the WSJ or something. SHe make me so sick.

NYT's Publisher Sulzberger was her real protector. Is he stepping aside? Then this 'retirement' will really mean something.

In the meantime, bye-bye dear Judith. Don't let the door hit you in th ass.

have sexual relations with that Scooter, Mr. Libby!!!

Dear Judy,

I know you've been distressed by the memo I sent to the staff about things I wish I'd done differently in the course of this ordeal. Let me be clear on two points you've raised.

First, you are upset with me that I used the words "entanglement" and "engagement" in reference to your relationship with Scooter Libby. Those words were not intended to suggest an improper relationship. I was referring only to the series of interviews through which you -- and the paper -- became caught up in an epic legal controversy.

Second, you dispute my assertion that "Judy seems to have misled" Phil Taubman when he asked whether you were one of the reporters to whom the White House reached out with the Wilson story. I continue to be troubled by that episode. But you are right that Phil himself does not contend that you misled him; and, of course, I was not a participant in the conversation between you and Phil.

I wish you all the best for the future.

Regards, Bill

Oh....I just GOTTA rewrite this for old Bill:

Either way. OUCH!!

:kick:

or 'nailed it' - forgot which. I feel for the matador but note the bull has a sword in his back - like many wars - victory is an illusion. All that is real is pain and carnage.

This one was great!

woot woot

...NOT..:smoke:

and then compare the response to Blair's duplicity with the response to the well connected Ms. Miller.

Where is the internal investigation? Where is the outrage? When is the NYT going to admit that Ms. Miller's duplicity was allowed and encouraged as part of the neocon editorial slant the paper took post (and most likely pre) 9-11?

All the propaganda they can manage to catapult.

"Only in America" - Don King

or end up on Faux News

What does Fox stand for again? Fascists on oXicodein :)

Ms. Miller originally demanded that she be able to write an essay for the paper's Op-Ed page refuting the allegations against her. The Times refused that demand - Gail Collins, editor of the editorial page, said, "We don't use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another" - but agreed to let her write the letter.


So, which is it, refused or agreed? Christ, NYTimes, time to go back to journalism school?

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: November 9, 2005
The New York Times and Judith Miller, a veteran reporter for the paper, reached an agreement today that ends her 28-year career at the newspaper and caps more than two weeks of negotiations.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/business/09cnd-judy.html?hp&ex=1131598800&en=c19400abb8be305c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I still sneak in the Sunday edition, but I'm much less credulous about what I read in the Times.

It is another measure of the decline of our country in this generation, that the once great "paper of record" can no longer be trusted for its reportage. I note that Ms. Miller, although she is the most serious threat to journalistic integrity, is not the first of recent times. There was the matter of Jayson Blair.

In spite of everything the NYTimes remains a worthy paper. And maybe BECAUSE of everything it can continue to be better. You just have to learn to read critically. Not everything can be commentary and analysis. Someone has to go there and actually get the story. The Times still does that. It's an essential step that it - and some other - still does.

The New York Post is not a "great" paper just because one of the authors of the "Federalist Papers" was once associated with it. Great papers are great because of what they are doing today and every day, not because of what they were two, twenty or two hundred years ago.

Great papers do not "send" Judy Miller and Jayson Blair to "get" the story.

I still read the NY Times myself, but I fully credit what my wife says, and I certainly do not think they have very high standards of reporting.

Mostly I buy it now on Sunday for the Magazine section and to read Frank Rich. Rich and Krugman, it seems to me, are now the token liberals in the Op-Ed pages just as the original Repuke Presidential liar - William Safire - used to be the token conservative. I read the film review and "the ethicist" in the magazine section (though if I were Randy Cohen, I would explore the ethics of writing an ethics column for a paper that has demonstrated low ethics).

The New York Times once had a great - probably deserved - reputation. But if you live by your reputation and not your practice you will fail and fail miserably. (I note that - although I never embraced it certainly - that George W. Bush once had a widely accepted "reputation" as a forthright and committed "leader.") In fact the New York Times allowed -because of gross negligence, journalistic incompetence, and complete lack of editorial integrity - it's reputation to be used to justify a grand law resulting in the deaths and/or maimings of many, many tens of thousands of human beings.

If the New York Times aspires to be a great newspaper again someday -it will do a hell of a lot more than "retire" a propagandist to avoid a lawsuit. For the time being, the New York Post has a slightly less dubious position. The New York Post is at least honest about what it is.

I'm glad she's getting the boot.

:woohoo:

...no more war supporters please without penance, mea culpas and full force investigation of the corrupt and incompetent that led the nation to shame and humiliation and wroughtand unleashed horrors on Iraq.

and had to sign a release saying she won't go bad mouthing the Times for quite some time.

Last time I lost a job, a guy from the home office showed up in a Friday morning, told me they were closing up that office, and handed me a check.

no doubt a shitload of dirty laundry on your employers as leverage.

us would be out on our ass in a heartbeat. :)

I can't believe the NY Times is still spinning Judy as a great journalist. All this bitch did was to take dictation from her neocon friends.

At least Chalabi is in town. Judy can give him a blow job for old times sakes.

Maybe he'll take her lying ass out of the country. Fuck her right in the ear.

Judith Miller to leave New York Times: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-09T211402Z_01_SCH976423_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-MILLER.xml

where the Good Lord splitcha, Jude.

Buh bye

"Miller was part of the team that won a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the al Qaeda terrorist network. However, her reporting on Iraq's weapons programs was widely criticized when no such programs emerged after the fall "of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/09/miller.retires/index.html

Maybe we need a Pullegger Prize? Or...HEY!!! nominate JM for an Ig Nobel Prize!

I mean, I wonder whether aspiring journalsists are learning anything from her actions. It'd be interesting to know, and to know whether her entire body of "professional" work is examined for bias.

Plain and simple, she abandoned journalistic principles and the public interest so she could cozy up to the powers that be to get the inside scoop and her 15 minutes of fame.

She'll go down in infamy for helping to promote an illegal disastrous war based on lies that she disseminated. It's just too bad that she'll be confortably well off financially. Let's hope she has at least a little difficulty living with her conscience.

is there to negotiate? fire her already! If she was any other employee she would have been history - what is this crap????
























:argh:

No one understands your bravery and patriotism and love for America.

I have just one question. Did Libby have you trained as well as those bears he caged with young girls?

Ala Jarhead...Jamie like a fox!

To hell with all betrayers of democracy..

Don't let the door hit you on the ass, Judy my dear.

stall number three in the bathroom of the Green Zone's Officer's Club.
Gotta keep up our fighting men's morale.