Skip to comments.Times editor says she regrets Miller case
Posted on 10/15/2005 4:43:54 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - Shortly after tasting freedom for the first time in nearly three months, New York Times reporter Judith Miller went for a massage and a manicure. She enjoyed a martini, a steak dinner and the fresh air.
That was the easy part. The once-jailed reporter's subsequent return to the paper's 43rd Street newsroom, where she was viewed as a polarizing figure, was fraught with anxiety. She found her co-workers "confused and perplexed" about her jail term for protecting a Bush administration source, and about her paper's apparent inability to rein in the Pulitzer Prize- winner, according to a lengthy article posted Saturday on the Times' Web site.
The article was the newspaper's first behind-the-scenes look at the information provided to Miller by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and how it landed her behind bars for 85 days. It marked the second time in 2 1/2 years that the paper published an investigation of itself, following the 2003 Jayson Blair plagiarism and fraud debacle.
Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson, asked what she regretted about the Times' handling of the Miller case, replied simply: "The entire thing."
Miller defended herself in the piece, saying the paper had "everything to be proud of and nothing to apologize for."
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating whether crimes were committed when Bush administration officials leaked the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters. Plame's covert status was exposed at a time when her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was charging that the White House manipulated intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities before the war.
Miller, 57, was released Sept. 29 after being jailed for her steadfast refusal to identify the source who leaked her the information. After getting the source's direct approval, she finally identified him as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.
In a separate first-person piece on the Times' Web site, however, she said she testified before a grand jury that she could not recall if Libby was the source who told her about "Valerie Flame," as the name appeared in her notebook.
"Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words "Valerie Flame," clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote.
The Times' companion story portrayed Miller as a divisive figure in the newsroom, with a few colleagues refusing to work with her. She was quoted as once telling a colleague, "I can do whatever I want."
Along with the freedom came problems. Miller's articles about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the months before the war were "totally wrong," she acknowledged in one of the stories posted Saturday. Previously, the Times had published an editor's note criticizing some of its prewar coverage; five of the six stories labeled as questionable were written or co-written by Miller, but the note did not specifically name her.
Todd S. Purdum, a Washington-based reporter for the newspaper, said many on the staff were "troubled and puzzled by Judy's seeming ability to operate outside of conventional reportorial channels and managerial controls."
The article noted that editors "found her hard to control," and that the paper's management allowed Miller to make many of the major decisions in the Plame case herself. For example, it said, Executive Editor Bill Keller and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. never reviewed the notes of her crucial conversation with Libby.
"This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk," Sulzberger was quoted as saying.
Recent stories indicated morale in the Times newsroom was lower than during the Blair fiasco, which led to the resignation of Executive Editor Howell Raines. The Times story pointed out that the paper was scooped on the Miller story more than once, and that Keller who knew the source's identity kept it from his own reporters.
It also noted that, after Miller's release, she made a newsroom speech "claiming victories for press freedom. Her colleagues responded with restrained applause, seemingly as mystified by the outcome of her case as the public."
Miller, one of a team of Times reporters that won a 2002 Pulitzer for coverage of the Middle East, was in Los Angeles on Saturday at a California First Amendment Coalition event to present an award to perhaps the most famous confidential source ever W. Mark Felt, the former FBI official known as "Deep Throat." She declined to say anything beyond what appeared in the Times' stories.
Although the paper was resolute in its support of Miller, championing its reporter in more than 15 editorials, Keller acknowledged in the Times' lengthy piece that it was a less-than-ideal case for their efforts.
"I wish it had been a clear-cut whistle-blower case," he was quoted as saying. "I wish it had been a reporter who came with less public baggage."
As the paper observed, "Neither The Times nor its cause has emerged unbruised."
On the Net:
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com
Ah but the real thing was she wasn't protecting any "Bush Admin source". She was protecting MSM and the demoncRATS.
warmed over Crow ain't so bad after ya already had a helping of it. ;-)
The more I read about this and the less I understand about this case, the more convinced I become that this all happened because Judith Miller wanted to be the lead character in a "Chicks in Prison" movie.
So it was always anger about protecting the Bush administration.......and they're not even ashamed to put that in print.
'when Bush administration officials leaked the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters.'
This is not a true statement. No leak has been revealed. Joe Wilson told many people what his wife's occupation was. He probably told this Miller ditz.
When Idiots are talking, give them the microphone with maximum volume...
She wasn't protecting an administration source. She was and is protecting Plame.
"So it was always anger about protecting the Bush administration.......and they're not even ashamed to put that in print."
Never mind that Miller just said under threat of perjury her source wasn't Libby.
They have no shame. Larry McShane is a paid liar. Like so many in the press.
This was always about the press picking up a smear (from Mr. Plame) and trying to make it into a fact even though it was a lie.
People like McShane are simply whores paid to promote that lie, no matter the facts.
Of course Miller was paid to sit on the truth for as long as she possibly could. (And probably got something like $15K a day for her troubles.)
They are all whores. Except that whores have integrity.
"Miller, 57, was released Sept. 29 after being jailed for her steadfast refusal to identify the source who leaked her the information. After getting the source's direct approval, she finally identified him as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff."
Am I missing something here? Today, it was revealed that Miller told the Judge she could not recall who told her the info, yet the article above tells me she said it was Liby.
Why doesn't the judge slap her arse back in jail for contempt?
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, right, leaves U. S. District Court in Washington with her attorney Robert Bennett, left, Wednesday, Oct. 12, 2005. Miller gave prosecutors details of a previously undisclosed conversation she had with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, adding a new dimension to the criminal investigation into the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity. Notes by the New York Times' Judith Miller that were turned over in a criminal investigation contain the name of a covert CIA officer, but the reporter has told prosecutors she cannot recall who disclosed the name, the newspaper reported Saturday. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
What's that quote? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills? This whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. Say what you want against this woman, I still can't believe she was sent to jail over this BS.
It makes my life look sensible by comparison.
This entire article is a steaming pile.
If there's any consolation, it's that this entire investigation happened because the NY Times campaigned for it.
Objective media my arse!
According to some "reporter" on television this week JOE WILSON WAS GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS WIFE WORKING AT CIA ON "BACKGROUND" to any "reporter" that would listen.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller, center, accompanied by New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., rear left, as she leaves the courthouse in Washington in this Sept. 30, 2005 file photo. Miller testified before a grand jury Friday, ending her silence in the investigation into whether White House officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Notes by the New York Times' Judith Miller that were turned over in a criminal investigation contain the name of a covert CIA officer, but the reporter has told prosecutors she cannot recall who disclosed the name, the newspaper reported Saturday. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
If that isn't the biggest sh*t-eating grin.
Thank God for Brite White.
"Am I missing something here? Today, it was revealed that Miller told the Judge she could not recall who told her the info, yet the article above tells me she said it was Liby."
This has always been about one thing--putting across the lie that the White House outed Plame.
Even Miller's sworn testimony will not stop that. For the DNC/AP this is an established fact because it's what they want to believe.
It's just another lesson in their mendacity, to stack on top of the thousands of prior ones.
The AP and the NY Times are simply the propaganda agents for the DNC.
Whatever "facts" they happen to report along the way is only done to sugarcoat the message.
"According to some "reporter" on television this week JOE WILSON WAS GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS WIFE WORKING AT CIA ON "BACKGROUND" to any "reporter" that would listen."
Just as you and I and some others around here had surmised all along.
Wilson told about his wife's job to gain himself some street cred with the reporters he was hawking his story to.
He almost certainly told someone at the NY Times. If not, Miller herself, somebody who probably later told Miller.
This is not at all complicated. It's only made to look that way by the media who want to use this lie to throw as much feces as they can.
To the media, news is just their jihad by other means.