Judith Miller RespondsBoy, does she ever—in this e-mail to public editor Byron Calame. Pretty hot stuff. For one thing, Miller clarifies the murky issue of what editor she discussed pursuing the Valerie Wilson story with: Jill Abramson. This, even though Abramson has denied that any such conversation ever took place. Is Abramson lying?
I know I shouldn't put it this way, but the catfight is turning into a three-way.....or even a foursome, if you include the interview Miller gives to the New York Post's Andrea Peyser....
Miller also clarifies her controversial decision to call Scooter Libby a "former Hill staffer," saying that " I agreed to that attribution only to hear the information. As I also stressed, Scooter Libby has never been identified in any of my stories as anything other than a 'senior Administration official.'”
If true, then Miller has a legitimate beef: the Times' tick-tock and Calame's column clearly left the impression that the wording "former Hill staffer" had gotten into the paper.
Finally, Miller accuses Calame of not giving her equal time: "While you posted Bill Keller’s sanitized, post-lawyered version of the ugly, inaccurate memo to the staff he circulated Friday, which accused me of 'misleading' an editor and being 'entangle' with I. Lewis Libby, you declined to post the answers I sent you to six questions that we touched on during our interview Thursday. Had you done so, readers could have made their own assessment of my conduct in what you headlined as “the Miller mess.”
Again, I think Miller has a point. If Miller answered his questions, why not post her answers? That's what the web is for, baby. Full disclosure. As they say in Washington, do an information dump. If the public editor won't level with readers, who will?
Miller also has a right to be outraged by Bill Keller's use of the term "entangled," which clearly suggests that she was sleeping with Scooter Libby. If Miller wasn't, then Keller not only chose his word poorly, he chose it sleazily.
Bill Keller inspires less and less confidence.
¶ 10:14 AM
Comments:
As someone who lives outside the centers of financial and political power in this country (i.e., Washington, New York), I'm pretty shocked by this whole Judith Miller fiasco. Just perusing the internal NY Times emails makes one begin to suspect that big-time reporters -- and their editors -- are just as biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately corrupt, as most of our politicians today. Gosh, we're not in Kansas anymore.
I can understand why you feel this way, and I expect you're right about many reporters. But I'm still optimistic about most members of the press, especially at that level. I still believe that there are lots of terrific, honorable reporters at the Times; in fact, I'm encouraged by the fact that so many of them were truly disturbed by Judy Miller's reportage. I wouldn't give up hope yet. Journalists have lots of flaws, but the good ones—and they do exist—stil care passionately about their craft and their professionalism.
