Journalism community turns on NY Times, Judy Miller - AP

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--times-judithmille1017oct17,0,7620748.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

NEW YORK -- With a ferociousness usually reserved for presidents caught lying to the public, the journalism world has turned on The New York Times and its reporter Judith Miller, who only weeks ago was being lauded for her willingness to go to jail to protect a source...

...Greg Mitchell, the editor of the journalism trade publication Editor & Publisher, said Miller should be fired for failing to provide her own paper with a full accounting of her conduct.

"It's not enough that Judith Miller, we learned Saturday, is taking some time off and `hopes' to return to the New York Times newsroom. As the newspaper's devastating account of her Plame games _ and her own first-person sidebar _ make clear, she should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism, and her own newspaper," Mitchell said in an online column.

Alex Jones, a former New York Times reporter who now directs the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, said the newspaper owes readers a deeper investigation into Miller's conduct.

"The credibility of The New York Times is at stake," he said. "She either needs to be given a clean bill of health, or she needs to be told that she can't represent the Times anymore."

Now that they've heard it, we have their response. All reporters should be defended when they protect confidential sources, IF what they're doing is legitimate. It's been a wait-and-see (though we rightly speculated how it would shake out) whether that would be the case with Miller.

they have had sources in the NYT for months and it was common knowledge what was going on.

Reporters should be able to read between the lines, not just write on them.

Even many of Miller's co-workers at the Times were shocked by much of what they learned over the past week. And you don't condemn somebody based on heresay--they had to wait until the Times came out with its formal explanation before they could officially condemn Miller.

m or the "fair and balanced" jounalism world.

He said that truth and fact are very often neither fair or balanced.



In order to be fair and balanced, the reporters waited 2 years (at least) and let us go to war and never argued against Miller?

That may be "fair and balanced", but it wasn't truthful or based in fact.

I'm talking specifically and only about her involvement in the Plame affair.

until just now.


Why didn't they pick her apart before?


When someone gets story after story wrong, you have to start doubting their credibility, but instead they called her a model of truth and justice. :puke:

She was definitely picked apart over her WMD claims.

And they never called her a model of truth and justice--they were defending the broader idea of protecting confidential sources. In fact, there was a lot of qualifying being done in the process of defending her decision to go to jail, lots of "she may be protecting the wrong people, and her involvement may have crossed a line, but we still have to defend the right of a reporter to protect her source."

votes for the constitution on Saturday


One day, reporters will have to learn that people lie. They lie often. If someone lies to you, then don't believe them so much next time. Simple concept, yet no one applied it to Miller.

to protect a source.

There's a difference.

testify against the criminal.

That has nothing to do with a journalist's right to protect a source.

I don't expect anybody at DU to concede that for a second, though. I recall Will Pitt being roundly attacked when he posted basically the same thing I've just said. That right of a reporter is sacrosanct, and that's why other journalists defended her.

I'm fully aware that you don't like that, which is all the more reason for that to be defended.

Say a man comes up to Judy and says, "hey, I just murdered this guy right here, but you aren't allowed to tell anyone that I did it."

Judy doesn't have to testify against him?

Nice straw man, though.

Let me try to make a better comparison. Her fellow journalists defended not what she did, but her right to protect a source, the same way they defended Woodward and Bernstein's right to protect Deep Throat's identity.

Ultimately one story served a greater good, and the other story did not, but that's irrelevant to the principal of source confidentiality. It is at heart a first amendment issue, and protects the good along with the bad (see, neo-nazis having the right to march, etc.).

"Ultimately one story served a greater good, and the other story did not, but that's irrelevant to the principal of source confidentiality."

If Miller wanted to not reveal her source, regardless of the "greater good", she doesn't have to. That would apply to the case above.

Miller quite obviously did not want to reveal her source; it was only after she received a full written waiver from Libby that she did so (which was the right thing to do in connection with a criminal case).

or criminal conduct and asks for anonymity due to possible retaliation by the lawbreaker.

In Treasongate, the leaker was the lawbreaker and wanted anonymity to escape prosecution.

What he did in giving the Pentagon Papers to the NYT and the Post was against the law, but it was the right thing to do.

In this case, our legal system worked precisely as it's supposed to in upholding Fitzgerald's contempt order to force the reporters to reveal their source--because it was the right thing to do. Everyone seems to think that the reporters should have just turned over their notebooks with no questions asked, and that is one dangerous precedent to set.

I'll say this one more time: I'm not defending ANYTHING about Miller's reporting or motives; I'm defending her right as a journalist to protect the confidentiality of a source. I'll also say this one more time: Our legal system has processes in place to remove that protection when it's legally justifiable, but it must--and should--be exercised only in extreme cases. This was such a case.

Nothing about blowing Plame's cover served the greater good, this case was the exact reverse of the Ellsberg scenario.

They were operating in the usual BushCo character assassination mode; I honestly don't think they thought in terms of making reporters "accomplices."

That said, it still doesn't change what I said in my previous post.

Her source was. It's rare I disagree with Will Pitt but I disagreed with him on this point and I still do.

Protecting a source and protecting a criminal are two different things.

This right has to be broadly protected.

I know you and many posters on DU don't agree with me, and that's fine. This entire sub-thread started with my attempting to explain the difference between standing behind Miller's reporting and standing behind Miller's right to protect a confidential source. They were and are two very different things. It bothers me that some can't get past their very justified disdain for Miller to see that.

Deep Throat is not. I'll have to think on this one a bit.

Miller went to prison not to protect a source, but to shield a crime. This was never about her fighting the good fight to protect the First Amendment.

Miller was, in one way or another, party to a potentially treasonous transfer of information. She was not maintaining the confidentiality of someone who provided her with needed information for a story. She was, however, protecting one or more people that she knew had committed a crime.

The crime that was committed was specifically done to limit free speech.

That is, Joe Wilson exercised his First Amendment right to free speech in response to a lie from the president of the United States which was calculated to convince the American public that we had to fight an unprovoked war in Iraq. After Wilson exercised his First Amendment rights, members of the bush administration, in collusion with Miller and Novak, maliciously revealed the identity of Wilson's CIA-operative wife.

Forget the fact that Miller lied and lied and lied in her "reporting" for the Times on WMD in Iraq. That's a horrible thing, but it's a side issue. She was party to a deliberate crime and she went to jail to protect herself and the other crooks who were involved.

To suggest that Miller is anything other than a shill, a hack and a disgrace is beyond naive.

If I read your posts correctly, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you does not respect the First Amendment. This is not so. I can guarantee that most, if not all people who post on this board hold the First Amendment dear. Of course, however, I can directly speak only for myself. I cherish the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is precious and endangered. The bush administration, with the help of the Millers of the world, is choking the life out of it.

Nobody, especially on this board, likes to be challenged on their feelings about the first amendment. And I'm not saying that if you don't believe a reporter's right to keep a source confidential that that makes you disrespectful of the first amendment. What I am saying is that broadly speaking--and this is why other journalists defended her on principle on her decision to go to jail--that is exactly what this one, specific aspect of Miller's reporting was about. On this one, specific matter, no, it's not an attempt to curb first amendment rights. To reach such a conclusion is a bit convoluted--that Miller (and Cooper and the other reporters aside from Novak) did not write a story on Plame shows at least some semblance of judgment in not using the information provided by the then-confidential source.

I agree with you completely that she is a hack lacking any credibility at all--but I'll continue to defend her right and any other reporter's right to maintain the confidentiality of a source, no matter how much it turns my stomach to do so. What so many people seem to be overlooking in this case is that our legal system has in place safeguards to remove that protection under certain circumstances--and for good reason, cannot do so without a reporter putting up a good fight. This is what Fitzgerald has done, and the judges who upheld the contempt order were right to do so in this instance. As soon as we begin to prevaricate and narrow that protection, we endanger all journalists' right to protect sources. I will defend that right stubbornly and, if necessary, with revulsion, the same way I'll argue for the right of the KKK to conduct public marches. They're dangerous and despicable, but they still have a first amendment right, too.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'm not going to back away from my position, either, because I believe in it quite strongly. I used to be a reporter, and those rights and privileges afforded to a free press cannot be eroded, even under what look like the noblest of circumstances (in fact, where the cause seems to be "righteous" to remove that privilege, it's at its most insidious).

I also used to teach Journalism.

I absolutely agree that reporters must protect their sources and I admire any principled stand in support of this.

However, Miller did not go to jail to protect a source. She went to jail to cover up a crime. That is a huge difference.

...did her attorney.

In fact, that's quite a stretch to say that she chose jail time in order to cover up a crime. Miller was/is absolutely too cozy with these people, but I don't believe for a second that she'd take a fall for them.

I happen to know her attorney, Floyd Abrams (one of the best media law attorneys in the country), and he advised her not to turn over her notes.

Just because we all know Miller to be a complete hack doesn't allow us the speculative room to project such a motive on her, when there's absolutely no evidence to support it.

The piddling jail time she did is nothing compared to what's about to come down the pike for the cabal she's whored for lo these many years.

Okay, you don't believe she was covering up a crime. So you don't think it was a crime for someone to reveal the name of a covert CIA agent for political gain? If not, then why is it not a crime?

If revealing the name of a covert CIA agent for political gain is a crime, and someone revealed this information to Miller--or if she revealed it to someone else--then she is by definition covering up a crime by protecting her "source." Whoever revealed Plame's identity was not a "source," in the accepted use of that term. And please, don't trot out the "Daniel Elsberg was a criminal, too" line. Elsberg was a whistleblower. The person who outed Plame was nothing more or less than a political enforcer, a thug of the lowest order, a traitor to the United States of America.

See, there was no STORY associated with any of this. There was no legitimate reason for anybody to know who or what Valerie Plame was. No story = no source to protect.

I'm curious--why are you such a fan of this woman if you truly believe she's a wothless hack? It seems like you want it both ways: She's a sorry excuse for a journalist, but she's a brave soldier in the fight for the First Amendment?

I don't get it.

Journalists are not gods granted with discretion to do as they please with no oversight. Savvy legal precedence supports this.

Lawyers, physicians and religious practitioners also have parameters outside of which they are subject to probing.

The test is whether information that's crucial can be found in any other way. If an attorney knows his/her client is a serial killer planning a rampage, that attorney needs to stop it, and if questioned directly, shouldn't have immunity. The same should be the case with religious practitioners.

I'm a BIG fan of the 1st Amendment, but shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there's no fire should be a crime. Hardcore images of penetration shouldn't be shown on billboards. People who want to make rigid absolute pronouncements are afraid of thinking and want to be freed of ever having to make a judgment. Journalists aren't superior beings; in fact, they exist by their pledge to be decent and honest to those of us who trust them. Betraying that trust is an odious crime.

This article put it best when she was accused of crimes against journalism. To hide behind privilege to deliberately disseminate known falsehoods is ugly beyond belief.

Look Bill, I've read all your works that survive (except "The Phoenix and the Turtle") and all I can say is that this simply doesn't jibe with your previous stances.

Impartiality is an impossibility, but striving for it is the heart and soul of journalism. Doing so grants one the exalted status of extreme personal trust. Shielding sources is the greatest expression of that trust, but if one is a moral criminal, con-artist, divisive liar and propagandist, one should lose some of those privileges. Regardless of what's "right" or "fair", the law is clear: if information that is of a serious nature can't be determined without piercing the veil of this "privilege", then the needs of the many outweigh those of the two. Detectives have the right to pull information from a Priest who's taken confession from a serial killer. Health officials have the right to compel a doctor to rat out a patient who's got the red death.

This is crap.

This is really crap.

She's no hero, she's a liar and a user who prevails upon other peoples' sense of fairplay to fuck over the entire world for her own selfish aims. As such, she's not a journalist and doesn't deserve any protection. If you feel such pronouncements are too easy to make, then you believe in aristocracy, and that's anti-democratic.

eventually as a tool it loses its power over the masses!!!

Judith Miller broke trust!!!

There must be a difference between a journalist and a conduit who promoted a crime.:thumbsdown:

another reporter narced on Miller to the Times FOUR YEARS AGO regarding her egregious stenography.

They've been waiting and seeing for four years? :(

That's why the condemnations weren't officially meted out until Miller's story was public. I'm not sure any of the non-journalists at DU really understand how sacred the defense of a confidential source is, even though it can be very problematic (and our cause not helped at all by cases like Miller's).

they need to hide a crime. She has eroded the very thing she claims to have protected, confidentiality. And we still have criminals all over the government who no doubt are at this moment preparing to exploit it.

The Times has a lot to answer for. And so does their nonjournalist, Miller.

to a journalist's First Amendment rights. I wish people had taken a step back at the very beginning and realized that she was protecting someone WHO COMMITTED A CRIME and not someone WHO UNCOVERED A CRIME. It's a big difference.

MendacityCentral. She's used ALL of their tricks and is a scofflaw who has shown nothing but contempt for her purported profession and for the American public.

And yet, it is always spun in terms of honor.

"Oh, but these are honorable men." JC

Salon has it exactly right on their main story, where they describe this embarassment as "worse than Blair."

is soon to follow.

... with the brilliant Frank Rich doing the same on weekends.

These 3 outstanding truthtellers that the NYT allow to be op-ed columnists serve as "balance" for the purpose of establishing legitimacy to the corporation/neocon bias on their front pages. On the other hand only scholars and professionals bother to look at the back pages, so it may not be so "balanced" after all.

Ding dong the wicked witch is dead...

:kick:

Go unity!

She is a shill for shrub and company. The Times has lost their credibility and Miller belongs back in jail.

First Amendment (!) award. As someone pointed out here earlier today--she went to jail for 85 days to protect a source and NOW SHE CAN'T REMEMBER WHO GAVE HER Valerie "Flame"'s name?!?!?!!!!!

Sorry Judy you're a liar and a crook you only deserve contempt.

With a ferociousness usually reserved for presidents caught lying to the public Whaaaaaaaaaaaat????? Can you say IGNORED DOWNING STREET MINUTES MEMO??????????? Where's the ferociousness?! The bastards LIED and so-called journalists damn well know it. I say, not just the credibility of The New York Times, but the entire MSM has no credibility whatsoever! That was lost the minute they decided to embed themselves with the Pentagon and have their news stories vetted by them and The New York Times with the Miller WMD BOGUS stories? Damn. Talk about lost credibility. They lost that a LONG time ago.

Newsday was best :D

He has an incredible history of political involvement, truth-telling, talking truth to power.

:patriot:

reserved for a cute, sweet woman, of which Miller is not) is finally getting her due. She is a sanctimonious, phony, opportunistic, vicious, self-agrandizing shrew who has thrown her weight around for years.

She is a despicable collaborator who jumped on the Scooter/Cheney bandwagon when she thought the war would make them all look like heroes. When things fell apart, she now feels the need to become a first amendment Joan of Arc. Please spare us Judith! (The mere sight of her sickens me.)

It's too bad Fitz couldn't keep her in the slammer any longer than he did.

tell me that they allowed Miller to take on a covert role without their knowledge. Noone should tell me that they knew that she was working for the DOD, but the arrangements were that they did not have to know what she was doing.

I'm talking about the grand scope of her participation in pimping for and planting stories and collaborating with liars who have killed and then lying to the world.

We have a traitor on a grand scale.

Then she insults The Justice Dept and us by telling us that she can' remember.

The New York Times is implicit and has been implicit in government covert actions for decades.

It's about time THEY STEP DOWN. THe world does not need them.

with you Higher Class. They knew what they were doing, they knew she was peddling propaganda.

I do think that the entire upper-eschalon of administrators and editors should *walk the plank*. They have known about and government covert actions for decades and failed to report -- that is part of the sickness of US journalism at large; of the US psyche.

Juan Cole has some great comments about this in his article posted at truthout.org <http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101705D.shtml>

:-)

She deserves every bit. I hope Fitz also indicts her. It's not out of the realm of possibilities. As a matter of fact, I think there's a good chance she may face indictments too.

Oh please! Come on! Bush and his band of thugs have been openly lying to this country and to the rest of the world since 2000, and until their lies and corruption recently became so apparent that it was no longer possible to plead plausible deniability, the press obsequiously sucked up to everything that cretinous little felonious idiot and his henchmen said and did. If there is a change in the MSM toward truth in journalism, it is long overdue.

Miller was only one among the many. It's a shame that the Washington Post which brought down the Nixon White House, was shamelessly whoring for the Bush White House.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

nt

:argh: And she's getting an award for WHAT..........

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

all played the game too?

Smelling in here, isn't it?

He/She has totally damaged the reputation of what used to be the greatest paper around.

Paper Chastened
At the wounded Times, fallout from the Judy Miller saga
by Sydney H. Schanberg
October 18th, 2005 11:46 AM

I was a copy boy, reporter, editor, and columnist at The New York Times for more than a quarter-century, and like many of its alumni, I care a lot about what happens at and to the paper...

In the wake of the Wen Ho Lee and Jayson Blair failures, the Times is in another embarrassing situation, this one about a national security reporter, Judith Miller, who felt she was above the rules and even called herself—facetiously, she claims—"Miss Run Amok." ...

The Times' revealing self-examination makes it clear that the paper had allowed her to become a sacred cow. No one seemed to want to rein her in. The piece does not fully explain this reluctance. Frankly, whatever the missing pieces are, it is obvious that at this point Miller is not telling anything approaching the whole truth. A newspaper and its reporters must explain clearly to readers why information is being withheld. Miller hasn't been clear. What's clear is that she's been fibbing her head off...

Miller says she's going to take some time off now and maybe write a book about these last months. She'd better find a computer keyboard with a lie-detection button. She also says she would like to return to the Times and write again about national security. The honorable thing would be to resign...

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0542,schanberg,68955,6.html

Hee hee--I'm enjoying every minute of it.

US journalism needs self-reckoning about its dire weaknesses as much as the establishment-serving Times needs a dressing down.

In another generation hardly anybody will be reading their slop--the seismic shifts in authority represented by blogging and digital media will dismantle mainstream news. For the time being, though, we need accountability.

Miller on a guillotine: that would be a good start. ;-)

Miller should have gone to prison, but not for refusing to reveal a source. She should have gone to prison for the lies about WMDs that she spread on the front page of the New York Times in the build-up to the U.S. invasion.

Many journalists seemed amazed that Miller stayed in prison after she was given a letter allowing her to say Scooter was her source. Maybe she thought she could write a better-selling book if she stayed in prison.

I read the NYT everday and I maintain it is still the best newspaper to read to get in-depth articles. It is unfortunate that the powers to be of this paper let Miller become a patsy for the WH on WMD and then become a patsy again for the WH slime machine. It is fortunate that the NYT and Miller have parted ways. I hope to God they never let her back!!!