Miller Time(s)

 

It’s rather breathtaking to watch Judy’s Miller’s flame-out (no pun intended). That the New York Times’ self-described "run-amok" reporter is self-immolating, I believe, is now an inevitability beyond any doubt.

It’s only a matter of time – a few weeks or a few months at most—before some sort of graceful, cosmetic exit is found. The wily and enterprising Ms. Miller no doubt will try to cash in with some over-hyped tell-nothing book (probably to be published by Judith Regan!) and then she’s off into the sunset: spending the rest of her years either giving talks to the Ahmed Chalabi Memorial Society, picking up tenure in some fourth-rate J School or playing dominoes with Dan Rather.

Never in my life have I seen an entire industry so completely and voraciously turn on one of its own. And with such good reasons!

In the veritable thicket of stories, commentaries, and blog-postings on the Miller-Libby-Rove-Plame scandal, one item above all sticks in my mind. Says The Washington Post:

Craig Pyes, a former contract writer for the Times who teamed up with Miller for a series on al-Qaeda, complained about her in a December 2000 memo to Times editors and asked that his byline not appear on one piece.

"I'm not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller," wrote Pyes, who now writes for the Los Angeles Times. He added: "I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her . . . She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies," and "tried to stampede it into the paper."

That was five years ago. But Miller continued to run amok. Even after the Times’ new editor Bill Keller came to power in 2003 and ordered that she be yanked off the WMD hobby horse she was so recklessly riding, Judy stayed firmly in the saddle. Indeed, dating back to the 1980’s and the Reagan’s Administration’s now-forgotten “war on international terrorism,” Miller has consistently played this same role as cheer-leader for the most unrestrained and untethered hawks and she wasn't about to give it up just because the lowly editor-in-chief of the Times told her to.

I make no pretension of adding to the debate over this still unfolding matter. Many others are doing a great job of tracking and unpacking the ragged zig-zags and byzantine layers of this story. But I want to comment on two points that have surfaced; two points that I think have forever doomed what was left of Miller’s rep and credibility with other reporters.

Her assertion that she can’t remember the source of her notebook notation “Valerie Flame” [sic] is simply preposterous. This is Clinton-class bullshit. Within days of that notation, the Plame story broke open and you’re not going to convince a soul that a frontline reporter for the New York Times didn't have her memory jogged – even if you were willing to believe she had temporarily lapsed.

Second, her stated intention to identify Dick Cheney’s chief-of-staff Scooter Libby, per his oily request, as merely a “former Hill staffer” is nothing short of a deliberate and calculated attempt to mislead the readers. Not because she fudged the attribution; anonymous sourcing is by definition all about fudging. But rather because she covered up a partisan charge in a partisan dispute i.e. she was willing to pass off an interested party as a disinterested neutral observer. This is a major journalistic felony. Give it a try in my USC graduate reporting class and you’re toast, pal. Do it at the New York Times and you deserve the never-ending scorn of your peers as you meekly turn in your badge and your gun.

P.S. Long over-due marccooper.com blog facelift and redesign coming very soon.

Comments

[Woody]

Marc wrote: "Never in my life have I seen an entire industry so completely and voraciously turn on one of its own. And with such good reasons!"

At the same time, Matt Drudge writes: "FLASH: Embattled NYT reporter Judith Miller arrived at Aladdin on Monday nite, quelling concerns she might cancel her speaking appearance Tuesday at Society of Professional Journalists/National Journalism Conference. Norm Clarke reports in the LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL: Event organizers confirmed they were adding security after Internet sites urged people to protest her appearance at convention, where she is receiving First Amendment Award for going to jail to protect source. 'We’re preparing for the worst,' said SPJ spokesperson Chris Vachon... Developing..."

Well, maybe not the ENTIRE industry has turned on her--not the 'Professional Journalists." How do you get an award for being so stupid...or is that raising the bar for some? Well, if they're "preparing for the worst," then that means they are preparing for Miller.

Marc, get over to Las Vegas fast! Maybe it's no longer the "last honest place in America."

[Marc Cooper]

LOL Woody! Well.... here's a dirty little truth. The SPJ ain't all like what it sounds... not exactly your top drawer professional organization. Proof? They gave me one of their top awards in 1991 (Best Journalism on Journalism). The friggin' SPJ convention where I got the award was in... are u ready............ CLEVELAND! I ditched it on the second day feeling like I had spent 20 yrs there the previous day.

[Ron]

We had a blast in Cleveland. I'm not a lover of bright lights and big cities, but I make an exception for Cleveland.

I'd say something on topic, but there has been so much commentary based on so little real information about this deal that I just can't generate any interest. Everybody seems to have their own bad guy here.

[sardonicus]

Marc wrote
" ... then she’s off into the sunset: spending the rest of her years either giving talks to the Ahmed Chalabi Memorial Society, picking up tenure in some fourth-rate J School or playing dominoes with Dan Rather."

I like to imagine her teaching a joint course on journalistic ethics with Jayson Blair. Ideally, she'd also invite Jeff Gannon and Armstrong Williams to be guest lecturers at some point.

[Marc Davidson]

MC - "Second, her stated intention to identify Dick Cheney’s chief-of-staff Scooter Libby, per his oily request, as merely a “former Hill staffer” is nothing short of a deliberate and calculated attempt to mislead the readers."
This for me is the kicker too. Is there any doubt where this "journalist's" loyalties lie... well at least not with the readers of the NYT.
What's especially pathetic is the effort by the paper to portray this woman as a victim of an assault on the 1st Amendment while she was cavorting with and protecting people anxious to undermine a real whistleblower.

[reg]

I find it ironic that Woody considers Miller "the worst" but apparently has no comment on the administration, neo-con and Iraqi exile hacks whose agenda she served and who used her as a funnel for their schemes, falsifications and misdirection. Miller was a compliant ally of some of the worst people imaginable in the context of our democracy - government officials and people with close government connections who would gin up war fever under false pretenses. It's hard to imagine anything more despicable.

Incidentally, did anyone notice Condi Rice shifting the narrative 180 degrees on Meet the Press and admitting that the Iraq invasion was primarily politically motivated and, in essence, nothing more than a page out of the PNAC playbook (invade Iraq to shift the balance of power in the Middle East) - which makes it crystal clear why the WMD scare had to be ginned up. A very small fraction of the American people would have supported a full scale invasion and occupation on the basis these con men (and women) cooked it up - an act of political "pre-emption", not an essential act of self-defense in response to a terrorist attack on our soil. Bush's popularity and the public's support for war on Iraq would have been down in the 30's had we been told straight what we were getting into and why. Sort of like now, two and a half years after the fact, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a record of gross negligence and incompetence in the very planning and conduct of the war itself. We're dealing with a gang of people with the mentality and methods of criminals in this administration and I pray that Fitzgerald can begin to get at them , even if at the margins - much like Watergate initially touched the margins of Nixon's criminality but began an essential process of unraveling.

[reg]

It's also clear that the right-wing hysteria about the "liberal media" is all populist shuck and jive. (William Kristol has actually admitted as much.) In the corridors of real power, these machiavellian fucks are able to keep "the liberal media" well under control and operating withing their rules of the game. If the "liberal media" turn on them, it is generally only for egregiously over-reaching and embarrassing incompetence .

[marky48]

"I find it ironic that Woody considers Miller "the worst" but apparently has no comment on the administration, neo-con and Iraqi exile hacks whose agenda she served and who used her as a funnel for their schemes, falsifications and misdirection."

Yeah so do I. She's a journalist, hence a biased hack by definition according to Wingnuttery 101 logic. Yet ironically her crime was reporting the adminsitration BS verbatim instead of reporting the facts as they were on the ground that told a much different story.

Amazing how these people have the heads jammed so far up their...well, I'm sure there's a perfectly illogical explantion for this dichotomy and we'll have it soon.

[Woody]

Yeah, the NY Times is a real defender and ally of this administration. Why couldn't I see that? Also, why can't I understand that this administration is totally incompetent but has the brilliance to pull off grand deceits and global fraud? It all makes sense--if you're on the left.

Woody:

The administration ATTEMPTED TO pull off grand deceits and global fraud

Luckily for us, they are too incompetent to succeed.

See, we can still hate them for both.

Anyway, I predict Judy will have a new job at the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal as soon as the book tour is finished.

[Woody]

I bet reg wrote that. I can be clairvoyant, too.

[Michael Crosby]

Woody, it is fair to say that the NYT editorialists have given Bush a tough time. One can say that is partisanship or one can say that's calling a spade a spade. Without regard to the paper's editorial policy, though, Judy Miller was out-front of the adminstration, plowing the fields and sowing seeds of public opinion (seeds provided by Chalabi and American buddies like Wolfowitz, Libby et al) for an invasion of Iraq.

It was in her interest as well as Bush/Cheney to discredit Joe Wilson, because he was discrediting one of Miller and the administration's favorite justifications for the invasion--that Iraq under Hussein posed an imminent threat to the people of the US due to his possession of or access to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. So it was in Miller's interest as well to disguise her sources, both because it made the info about WMD politically more credible, and it made her seem like less of a lapdog/mouthpiece for the administration, Chalabi and their favorite source of Iraqi gossip, "Curveball."

Say what you will about Woodward, Bernstein's "Deep Throat," it will be hard to top Miller's Scooter, Curveball, Flame and Turdblossom.

For this story and well as DeLay, Brownie, Miers and a number of the other brushfire scandals burning toward the White House, it is important at all times to remember and report them within their proper context--why these people took (or failed to take) the actions they did, and what political disaster they were trying to hide or advance.

[reg]

"It all makes sense--if you're on the left"

I didn't write that other comment, but frankly Woody, you're in a shrinking minority and you damned well better get used to it. All of the triumphalist bullshit you clowns have been throwing at us over the past few years is over. If you can't figure out the facts of how we were drawn into this war and why it was wrong from Day One, it's because you've willfully stuck your head iin the sand.

Also, I disagree with that commenter because I don't think Miller has the credibility to work at the WSJ as a reporter. They have some of the best. Of course, she could always write for that wacky editorial page or help Taranto cobble together his silly shit...

[Woody]

My bad, reg. I thought the comment was from you, based on the style and because the writer forgot to sign it. However, clues that it wasn't from you were that it wasn't followed by an admission or a duplicate posting.

I'm not thowing anything at the left except their own words with facts and clarification added to discredit their views. By now, you should realize that I'm more of a responder than an initiator on these matters. If you or others don't say anything, I'm usually content to sit around making spreadsheets and watching ball games. But, your side is so guilty of believing any rumors, jumping to false conclusions, and spreading misinformation that I was assigned the task of shining light on those false revelations.

I will admit that, having led almost my entire life under Democratic state governments and Democratic controlled Congresses, I'm glad for the change in leadership and don't welcome handing back power to the old crooks we voted out.

On the Iraq war, I've always stated that I did not favor it from the start, mainly because I didn't have enough information to justify it in my mind. Nevertheless, I assumed that those in authority had more facts and more time for analysis than do I--or, you. I guess we'll know who was right for sure in about ten or fifteen years.

One thing that I did know was that the U.N. was corrupt and that its passing resolutions and threatening to pass more resolutions was ineffective. If you were willing to wait on the U.N., you would still be waiting, and tortures at the hands of Hussein in Iraq would still be continuing.

---------------

Michael, Joe Wilson just claimed to discredit concerns about Iraq seeking nuclear material--he didn't actually do it. His mission was a joke--set up by his wife as a political mission on behalf of the Democrats and for which he wrote his report as an op-ed in the NYT. The British still believe that Hussein had inquired about the (what was it?) yellow cake. There was no need to discredit Wilson because his own words and conclusions were enough to discredit him. His mission and his investigation were phoney. If he, and others, cared about America, then he would have done justice to the investigation and would have gone beyond asking a few people a few questions. He knew his "real mission" and finding the truth about Hussein would only have hurt it.

Further, to "expose" his wife, who had not been a CIA operative for over five years was a pretty puny way to hit at him if that was the goal of the administration. If Wilson had kept his own mouth shut, no one would have heard of his wife. He didn't want that--also, for political gains.

I have no problem seeking "why these people took (or failed to take) the actions they did, and what political disaster they were trying to hide or advance." But, you well know that accusations and indictments are a long way from proving negligence or crimes sufficient for conviction. Most of the left hears indictment and are ready to take the accused to the gallows. That, to me, shows plain stupidity.

Since you mentioned Delay, do you have any problem with the Travis County, Texas D.A. using his position to "protect" the people of the county from conspiracy to "launder" campaign contributions, for which the Democrats did the exact same thing, and is that the best use of his resources and the biggest threat to the citizens he represents--or, is it simply a way to use public tax money to finance Democratic smears? Also, do you have a problem with the judge being a Democratic activist and contributor to MoveOn.org? I do, but I'm not the lawyer around here. I suspect that you see that situation for what it really is, and the Democrats are stinking up the legal process.

---------------

Could you believe the comeback by the Cardinals with a three run homer in the ninth inning last night? That Astros crowd got as silent as Democratic Headquarters the night that Kerry lost. Too bad that Kerry couldn't make it the best out of seven against Bush. On the other hand, as in the state of Washington, the Democrats do make it the best out of seven--where they keep counting up to seven times until they get the governor that they want. Too bad that there was a Democratic judge for that one, because the vote fraud of the Democrats was white-washed. Maybe the NY Times will cover that better next time, too.

[marky48]

The didn't pull it off because they're both, incompetent, and oblivious to reality. And they do while quickly spending other people's money. Generations of it in fact. It makes perfect sense unless you're a winger and blind from the neck up. Indeed.

[marky48]

"with facts and clarification added to discredit their views"

Really? I'm afraid just claiming Wilson was discredited isn't providing said "facts." You see Woody your opinion isn't good enough and sure as hell isn't a fact. Just repeating an allegation stemming from another wingnut site doesn't hold up in court, or in the blogosphere for that matter. Take a class.

[Woody]

If you are a working journalist, you can express your support for Judy Miller and commend her for "standing firm and standing up for First Amendment principles" by going to this site ( http://www.rcfp.org/standup/index.php?op=show ) and adding your name to the prominent list of those who have previously indicated their commitment to her and others named--with this statement:

---------------

"A Statement in Support of Journalists Found in Contempt of Court

"For well over a century, reporters have recognized an ethical duty to protect their confidential sources. If journalists could not and did not honor this guarantee, significant sources who fear reprisal would be afraid to reveal what they know; valuable information about government conduct would not reach the public.

"Reporters recognize that this duty must be defended uniformly. It should not be compromised whenever questions are raised about possible sources, or it will be lost in all situations.

"We support the reporters in current federal court proceedings who are refusing to testify about their confidential sources and now face stiff fines, even jail. We commend these reporters for standing firm and standing up for First Amendment principles."

---------------

At the site, you can also view almost 5,500 "signatures" of support--including one unexpected name. I bet that some people wish that there was a way to remove their names off of this list now. We love him anyway.

[Woody]

marky48, since we're not getting college credit for our comments, I didn't think that I had to provide a bibliography and footnotes. Unless someone pays me, I'm not going to google what you want--especially since anyone interested can do that himself. However, Wilson's "report" by itself indicates a shoddy and almost non-existent investigation.

You would be surprised at how little I refer to "wingnuts" and conservative talk radio. (I do enjoy Laura Ingraham's wit, though.) Actually, I spend more time reading and listening to liberals--at the risk of destroying brain cells. I want to hear opposite views to make me think rather than those similar to mine, which might reinforce false conclusions. Repeating similar views is the mindset reserved for those in the Democratic Underground. My comments come from my own observations, research, and analysis independent of those sources that you list.

Tell me if you have any trouble checking my claims, and I may come back to help you. There may be a fee involved, however.

I was at the office until 4:00 AM last night and I'm not going to do it again tonight, so that's it for me.

Just to stay on topic, let me mention Judy Miller. Judy Miller.... There, I did it.

[Mavis Beacon]

In case you haven't already made all the design decisions, let me ask the regime to consider a less imposing banner than the current MARC COOPER, blue, photo. I'm trying to read this at work for god's sake!

Dear Woody,

Lets stick to some facts: Delay has been indicted by two grand juries for felony money-laundering and conspiracy charges. According to Oct. 18 LA Times, "the charges could result in a life sentence."

Ad hominenm attacks on D.A. Earle in Texas really are quite irrelevant to whether or not Delay is guilty. Earle's politics and his political contributions are irrelevant to whether or not Delay is guilty. Whatever Democrats did or didn't do in Texas is also irelevant to whether or not Delay is guilty. What you do is throw red herrings all over the floor. Well, we'll just ignore all those red herrings.

More facts: It's against the law for corporations to give political contributions to people running for office in Texas. Corporations gave thousands upon thousands of dollars which were funneled to the national Republican committee and then funneled back to Texas to help elect more Republicans in Texas. Delay was head of Texas Republicans. Now who laundered the money? No one needs Earl to see clearly that Delay was the person who had the greatest motive to laundry the money. Ah motive! Did he have the opportunity? Did he do it? The jury will decide.

As for what you say about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, it's either red herrings or untrue. No, Valerie Plame didn't send her husband. Joe Wilson was fully qualified to make the investigation which he made. No, there's absolutely no evidence that Hussein ever tried to get uranium.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Jim Russell]

Judith and Valerie are side shows in comparison to the good news that the Iraqi people have once again shown their longing and courage, in the face of true danger, to exercise their freedom to have a say in their future.

For us, just another right we have long since taken for granted and have come to expect for free.

[richard lo cicero]

I understand that the vote in favor of the Iraqi Constitution was 99% in favor in one area (province?). Nice to know Kathleen Harris found time to help out there from her struggle to get the GOP nomination in Florida!

Re Judy Miller. Those who listened to Gore Vidal on the thread below should know that the Sage of Hollywood and Ravenna has had nothing but unkind remarks to make over the "Newspaper of Record" and its accuracy for years. Fit to print, indeed.

Oh, and Woody, that judge in Washington was a Republican. But as your henchmen said in 2000, when GOP thugs from DeLay's office and "Diplomats" like John ("I'm here to stop the count") Bolton, get over it.

[Marc Cooper]

Woody.. good point about the petition. But I have no regrets. Freedom and liberties are best tested by applying them to the least desirable and unpopular. Judy Miller is both. I knew that 20 years ago. The principle remains valid.

[marky48]

We stand for that princple. I'm afraid Woody you're going to have a hard time convincing me of your independent thought when it mirrors the wingerville group fallacies to the letter. Then again, as a biologist I think it's genetic so you wouldn't have to. Given the facts the same faulty conclusion just emerges according to innate bias.

Google easily comes up with those same flawed winger quotes you so believe in. It fails to make them valid however. Only sound reasoning can do that.

[reg]

"set up by his wife as a political mission on behalf of the Democrats"

Just for starters, that's a total fabrication. You don't kknow what the hell you're talking about.