The Public Editor vs. Judith Miller
Times public editor Byron Calame weighs in with
his thoughts on the Judith Miller fiasco.
They are more or less as follows:
1) The Times was slow to fault its, and particularly Miller's, reporting on Iraq before the war began, largely because of the Jason Blair fiascos. (Lots of fiascos going around the Times these days.)
2) Judy Miller takes "journalistic shortcuts."
3) Times editors treated Miller with kid gloves, treatment which only made the fiasco worse.
4) "The problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."
I'm underwhelmed by Calame's column, which essentially repeats everything we already knew and doesn't dig very deep.
For example, it takes Bill Keller's words about "lancing the WMD boil earlier" at face value. But as readers of the blogosphere well know, the Times did a remarkably poor job of evaluating its reportage strongly suggesting that Iraq had or was about to acquire WMDs. On a story of immense importance—whether there was reason for this country to go to war—the Times not only got the story wrong, but got it wrong in such a way that promoted war. The reporter most responsible for this was Judy Miller—and the Times' WMD mea culpa failed to address her role.
Calame also neglects to address the news, broken by Andrea Peyser in Sunday's New York Post, that Milller was allowed to read last week's tick-tock of, for lack of a cuter phrase, "Miller Time"—before publication.
Since when does the Times allow the subjects of its articles pre-publication review?
And, while this is a touchy situation, Calame lets Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., off the hook. He notes that Sulzberger strongly defended Miller. But he doesn't push the question of why, and that is something of a mystery. Folks outside the Times have known for years that Miller was trouble. And it sounds like some folks inside the Times have also known that.
So why did Pinch Sulzberger put the credibility of his newspaper at risk to stick up for a reporter whose dubious history waved more red flags than a bullfighters' school?
(Sorry.)
And here's a question I have: Judy Miller once again refused to name the editor she claims she asked for permission to pursue a story about Valerie Wilson, and who allegedly said no. Who is this mysterious editor? Washington bureau chief Jill Abramson says it wasn't she. Was it Bill Keller?
In any event, how can a newspaper possibly continue to pay a reporter who won't disclose her own discussions with the paper's editors?
To rebuild its credibility, the Times should do more than just let Judy Miller sneak away and write a book. It needs to fire her.
