The Blogosphere on Miller (update 2)
Sunday October 16, 2005
I pulled out the laptop tonight Saturday night to begin ordering my thoughts about Good Night and Good Luck ... but after a quick peek at GoogleNews, I discovered that journalistic personalities of 2005 aren't in the same league as those of the 1950s.
After reading the NYT pieces and capturing my initial reaction, I began a jog through the blogosphere. I discovered that I am not alone in my incredulity over NY Times reporter Judith Miller's insistence that she can't remember who she was talking to when she scribbled "Valerie Flame" in her notebook. Nor am I alone in taking offense at Miller's agreeing to let Scooter Libby be sourced as a "former Hill staffer":
BuzzMachine found this interesting juxtaposition from Entangled Thoughts:
More after some zzzz's.
Update:
At New Media Musings, JD pulls no punches:
In History Unfolding, David Kaiser explores the tension between "expos[ing] the truth about what our government is doing" and "tak[ing] advantage of relationships with high officials to print 'inside stories'" -- stories which may or may not serve a higher calling of enhancing democracy or discourse. His evolutionary trail: Bob Woodward (career evolutionl) to Michael Isikoff (Lewinsky) to Judith Miller (Libby).
See Miller's Security Clearance, The Blogosphere on Miller, Editor & Publisher: Fire Miller, Miller and Plame: One More, Miller Talks; Confessional Contradicts Prior Reports of Libby's Role, Plame Timeline.
Technorati Tags and Profile
Judith Miller, Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, Politics
After reading the NYT pieces and capturing my initial reaction, I began a jog through the blogosphere. I discovered that I am not alone in my incredulity over NY Times reporter Judith Miller's insistence that she can't remember who she was talking to when she scribbled "Valerie Flame" in her notebook. Nor am I alone in taking offense at Miller's agreeing to let Scooter Libby be sourced as a "former Hill staffer":
- FireDogLake:
Come on! You had 85 days to sit on your butt and do nothing but think about this case, and you can't remember who first told you the name of the CIA NOC at the center of this mess? You have to be kidding me if you think any of us are buying that, let alone Patrick Fitzgerald. - Huffington Post:
Given the "gee-whiz, it all just sort of, like, happened, and I don't know when or why or where or who..." tone of her mea no culpa , maybe Judy is vying for a role on MTV's "Laguna Beach." - The Moderate Voice:
It's as conceivable for a journalist to be unable to recall who gave her/him/it a crucial piece of information on a huge story as it is for a fired or resigned journalist to forget pick up her/his/its severence pay -- something Miller may soon have to do real soon. - PressThink
Miller cannot recall where the name at the center of the case came from? Wowzer. Sure to be the center of controversy over the next week. Claiming memory loss about the most important fact in the story is weak. Very. - Tom Watson:
By her own admission, Miller's memory is bad and her notes wouldn't be a credit to a reporter on a college newspaper.
That, in a nutshell, is how the Bush White House abuses the MSM (which willingly goes along with the abuse), in order to lie to the public. Libby's anonymous sourcing demand is PATENTLY MISLEADING, and Miller #### AGREES to it!!!The conservative PowerLine says reading Miller's story "strengthens" the "impression that this investigation is much ado about nothing." I don't understand this casual attitude toward what, at a minimum, appears to be perjury.
BuzzMachine found this interesting juxtaposition from Entangled Thoughts:
"......at this point in time I do not recall just who said that...." John Dean--WatergatePerhaps the most pithy description comes from ScoopStories, where Scott writes: "Judith Miller is less helpful than a bad spokeswoman."
"...I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall....." Judy Miller--Traitorgate
More after some zzzz's.
Update:
At New Media Musings, JD pulls no punches:
I think Judith Miller is lying. I remember my sources from stories five to 10 years ago. It strains credulity to believe that Miller "can't remember" the name of the primary source who leaked to her the name of "Valerie Flame," as the note in her reporter's notebook had it. I just don't believe her.Others are also asking about Miller's security clearance: Anupam Chander, Atrios, Editor & Publisher, FBIHop, Poynter Forums, Steve Gilliard, and TMP Cafe.
In History Unfolding, David Kaiser explores the tension between "expos[ing] the truth about what our government is doing" and "tak[ing] advantage of relationships with high officials to print 'inside stories'" -- stories which may or may not serve a higher calling of enhancing democracy or discourse. His evolutionary trail: Bob Woodward (career evolutionl) to Michael Isikoff (Lewinsky) to Judith Miller (Libby).
Reporters need to protect sources, of course, to be able to publish information the public needs to know. I do not see, however, how they can justify it based upon a need to receive disinformation from government sources, and the courts have actually ruled on numerous occasions that the privilege cannot be asserted to conceal evidence of a criminal enterprise...He closes with a long quote from Hugo Black,which includes:
Confronted with her own notes of the critical conversation in the biggest story she has ever had, Judith Miller claims that she doesn't remember how the key name got there. That seems to me to cast considerable doubt on her abilities as a reporter.
The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government... Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.Amen. Perhaps someone should engave this on a plaque and mail it to the execs at the NY Times. They seem to have forgotten.
See Miller's Security Clearance, The Blogosphere on Miller, Editor & Publisher: Fire Miller, Miller and Plame: One More, Miller Talks; Confessional Contradicts Prior Reports of Libby's Role, Plame Timeline.
Technorati Tags and Profile
Judith Miller, Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame, Politics
Comments
Thanks for the link.
In return I’m linking back to you at Pressthink and from my blogcritics pieces.
Personally this is my favorite pithy line so far:
“Can we possibly have a less likable journalist to play the role of martyr than Judith Miller of The New York Times?”
Why is Powerline labeled “conservative” but no other blogs are labeled at all? Especially Kos which is fundementally a “Liberal” blog.
Is there any especial need to label one blog and not the rest? I doubt the perspective of political leanings is of much surprise to anyone in the blogsphere, but giving perspective on everyone would have been more balanced.
I characterized “Powerline” because the comments I pulled from that blog were about the issue (the leak) not Miller and journalistic ethics.
The other blogs range from liberal to moderate — but none of them are talking about the issue (the leak).
I don’t think of media ethics in the sense reported here as a “liberal v conservative” issue. Have I missed something? Is it? If it is — in other words, conservative bloggers think differently about anonymous sources and journalists with security clearance allowing their stories to be censored — then I’d appreciate links that illustrate that viewpoint. I’ll include them and note that there appears to be differing political views on the journalistic ethics on Miller’s behavior. I didn’t see anything like this when I was poking around the blogosphere on Sunday.