Posted on 10/17/2005 5:13:46 PM PDT by Daralundy
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.
A few media critics and academics suggested Monday that the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter should be fired. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in a memo to staff, expressed the hope that the public brouhaha would subside but did not disclose what further action, if any, the paper would take.
The reaction stemmed from a pair of articles published in the Times over the weekend, which revealed several surprising new details about Miller's work covering the Bush Administration's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Miller spent 85 days in jail for initially refusing to tell a grand jury whether an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney had spoken to her about Valerie Plame, a covert CIA official whose identity was leaked to journalists in 2003.
She was released from jail in late September after she agreed to testify, saying that her source, I. Lewis Libby, had released her from her vow to keep his identity a secret.
The Times offered a pair of stories on its own role in the episode Sunday, one written by staff reporters, and the other a first-person account by Miller.
Among the revelations: Miller said she couldn't remember who first told her Plame's name, but said she didn't believe it to have been Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. She said she had agreed to identify him in a story only as a "former Hill staffer," even though he worked, not for congress, but for Cheney.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I believe the military refers to this sort of stuff as "red on red".
Yeah, when the other side does it to each other. When we do it to ourselves it's blue on blue.
I love it when they eat their own!
Miller: "I'm ready to go to jail rather than give up my source. Actually, I can't remember who my source was. But it wasn't Libby."
I accidently listened to Airhead America today and Randi Rhodes was basically saying that Judith Miller was a Bush stooge...
I'm not sure I understand why they are so angry. Is it because she didn't nail Libby?
Within the US though: because some idiot decided the socialists states would be blue and the consrvative ones red, you have to reverse it.
So, protecting your source is only noble when that source might be a liberal Democrat...
Is it because she didn't nail Libby?>
You Nailed it!!!
Miller said she couldn't remember who first told her Plame's name, but said she didn't believe it to have been Libby,
This is a huge pile of smelly crap.
The only thing missing here is the, "I don't know, I went to the bathroom because I drank too much ice tea" defense.
FTW?
LVM
i think thats EXACTLY why they are angry. because her testimony didn't wrap up their assumptions with a pretty bow.
hell, they are probably even angry that the weak evidence pointed toward libby rather than the real boogieman in their nightmares, karl rove.
It's because her notes didn't implicate the administration. They'll never forgive her for that.
She spent 85 days in jail to up the price she was paid to write a book. The fact that she can't remember anything puts her in same league with Hillary Clinton or Bill. Nothing here, move on. bwahahahahahaha!
Why do I doubt this, I have waited years for MSM to start eating their own, don't think it will happen now. Unless, the Rove & Libby criminal thingy is falling apart? They will need someone to blame for their own stupid lies.
Maybe Chrissy will just do the right thing and off himself.
"If I had it to do over, there is probably much I'd do differently, and we can chew on the lessons learned when I return, but I hope my first instinct _ and the paper's _ would still be to defend a reporter in the line of duty, even if the circumstances lack the comfort of moral clarity."
What he is saying in liberal newspeak, is that there was no "moral clarity" because Miller said she went to jail believing she was protecting Libby, a Bush person.
In other words, the argument within the MSMers is between those like Keller who believe reporters should protect their sources, and the others who believe reporters should protect their sources unless the sources are Republicans.
Looks like it's full-on CYA Mode over at the NYT and Miller's the one left holding the bag. Oh, well--she knew the odds when she went to play Rope-A-Dope with the masters.
They don't do it nearly as often as we do our own, and we are uglier if you have noticed lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.