Judith Miller's Farewell

New York Times ^ | November 10, 2005 | Judith Miller

[Zeppo]

On July 6 I chose to go to jail to defend my right as a journalist to protect a confidential source, the same right that enables lawyers to grant confidentiality to their clients, clergy to their parishioners, and physicians and psychotherapists to their patients. Though 49 states have extended this privilege to journalists ... there is no comparable federal law. I chose to go to jail not only to honor my pledge of confidentiality, but also to dramatize the need for such a federal law.

After 85 days, more than twice as long as any other American journalist has ever spent in jail for this cause, I agreed to testify . . . I did so only after my two conditions were met: first, that Mr. Libby voluntarily relieve me in writing and by phone of my promise to protect our conversations; and second, that the special prosecutor limit his questions only to those germane to the ... Wilson case. Contrary to inaccurate reports, these two agreements could not have been reached before I went to jail ... Though some colleagues disagreed with my decision to testify, for me to have stayed in jail after achieving my conditions would have seemed self-aggrandizing martyrdom or worse, a deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecutor's inquiry into serious crimes.

...

I salute The Times's editorial page for advocating a federal shield law before, during and after my jailing and for supporting as recently as two weeks ago my willingness to go to jail to uphold a vital principle. Most of all, I want to thank those colleagues who stood by me after I was criticized on these pages.

My response to such criticism will be posted in full on my Web site: JudithMiller.org.

...

[Zeppo]

Here's Miller's farewell apologia... Not much new that I can see - apparently a confirmation that she was threatened with felony obstruction charges, and the admission that she went to jail to dramatize the need for a Federal Shield law seems to be new news (and is probably an afterthought, another weak attempt to make herself a martyr for the 'profession' in order to rehabilitate herself in the eyes of her peers). Perhaps her web site (or a future book deal?) may shed some more light on all of the unanswered questions, but the tone of this tear-drenched letter to the editor makes that somewhat doubtful.

[SteveMcKing]

Reporters who become the news are not reporters.

[SC33]

Just read the responses on her website. They are very good, and she nails Maureen Dowd on some mistakes that she made in her column. Good read.

[Zeppo]

When Miller refers to her former editor, Jill Abramson, as Dowd's "close friend", the icy relationship between the two is almost palpable, huh...

[Zeppo]

I never identified the editor to the grand jury or publicly, since it involved internal NYTimes decisions. But since you did, yes, the editor was Jill Abramson. Obviously, Jill and I have different memories of what happened during that turbulent period at the paper. I gave my recollection under oath.

What a deliciously-catty way to call Abramson a liar!

[Zeppo]

I agree with you that reporters must be more than stenographers. The same is true of columnists.

Translation: Take your column and shove it, you ugly slut...

[HAL9000]

It's sad to see the New York Times lose a couple of their best writers recently - William Safire and Judith Miller. But they still have John F. Burns and John Markoff.

[singfreedom]

Talk about a self-aggrandizing, ego maniacal, martyr complex! Her actions and experiences with the judicial system are enough to convince me a reporter's shield law would be one of the STUPIDEST things we could do!

After hearing Mary Mapes'explain that she didn't think reporters should have to vet their sources before they do a story, I have nightmares about what they would report fallaciously. Hoping, of course, that no one would take the time or trouble to determine the actual truth.

[Treader]

Judy is truly a tragic figure- perhaps she can prevail against the foggy mist of fatal uncertainty. Then again- maybe the hell- NOT. Willy Shakethesphere has told this story, yet again.

[CyberAnt]

But .. the "confidential source" she was protecting WAS NOT LIBBY!!

[ONETWOONE]

And may I say, reporters who divulge national security items from leaked sources should not be protected.

[msnimje]

a deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecutor's inquiry into serious crimes.

An unbiased reporter would have said "potential" serious crimes. Or "if serious crimes were committed."

[fso301]

I went to her website and read her letter to Maureen Dowd. It was hoping she would respond to maureen saying she slept her way to the top but she didn't.

[nopardons]

bttt

[wildcatf4f3]

still think shes spooked up

[Mind-numbed Robot]

MSM Morons aren't professional anythings. They are smear artists, hucksters, and dimwits.

Their chief qualification seems to be how much liberal Kool Aid they are willing to drink.

[elli1]

later

[JoeSixPack1]

Though 49 states have extended this privilege to journalists ... there is no comparable federal law.

Sorry. See ya. Ciao. Ta-Ta.
Hey Hey Hey, Good Bye!

[thegreatbeast]

I'm unhappy about Miller leaving the NYT only because she irritated so many there,