|
|
October 14, 2005
The Hypothesis: Notes on the Judy Miller SituationThis post I will keep updated with information and links throughout the weekend-- as life permits. So check back. (Hypothesis is Judy Miller won't talk to the Times reporters and help them produce a truthful account.)UPDATE, Oct. 15. New post! Times Report on Judith Miller is Up: Key Passages. Go there to comment. In my last post, Armchair Critic Speculates, I gave readers my hypothesis, to be tested against events: Judy Miller would not, in any material way, cooperate with the team of Times reporters directed by deputy managing editor Jon Landman. I wrote: Everything has to wait until the moment when Judy “can be expected to tell what happened,” as Landman so carefully put it. When it comes and she still refuses the hierarchy will turn a whiter shade of pale. Key people will then know their investment in Miller went terribly wrong. You have met The Hypothesis. If it dies by reason of being untrue I shall be pleased to report it. And if I knew that vital source Judith Miller, editor Jonathan Landman, reporters Adam Liptak, and Don Van Natta Jr., and writer Janny Scott got themselves a hotel suite (let’s say the Michelangelo at 51st and 7th Avenue) to thrash out the truth, and piece together an account that will stand up to the proper scrutiny of their readers and peers, then as a Times reader, a paying subscriber, a preening New Yorker, a journalism academic, a press critic, and public interest blogger, I would feel relieved. Quite so. (Of course I don’t know of any huddle like this; there have been no reports.) Like Times-people I am rooting for the Landman team, and for the Times as a truthelling force in the world. I said it two days ago in Speculates: If there is any strong current of hope it has an incredibly simple source: that Times journalism will win out in the end, despite all the coming losses, because in the end Jonathan Landman, Don Van Natta, Adam Liptak and Janny Scott will be able to tell the truth. If Judith Miller is helping them— good! I would expect it to go without saying. My last four posts (here… here… here… and here) have been the words of a disappointed Times loyalist. Now for the evidence that’s come in since The Hypothesis. (And why do we have to guess about all this? No one could draft a simple note to readers? What media era are we in?…) First, in the Wall Street Journal’s report on Miller’s second day of additional testimony, the big news was the lifting of the contempt order: “I am delighted that the contempt order has been lifted, and Judy is now completely free to go about her great reporting as a very principled and honorable reporter,” said Robert Bennett, Ms. Miller’s attorney. And will Judy cooperate? The Hypothesis wants to know… Reached Wednesday afternoon, Ms. Miller declined to say whether she would be giving an interview to the Times. (Italics mine.) The court had just said: Judith Miller, you are free to go. Her attorney had just said she’s in the clear to be a journalist again. But when asked if she would grant an interview to her own newspaper, the New York Times, Judy Miller declines to say whether she will or won’t. Sorry, that counts as evidence for The Hypothesis. Okay, more. From Salon’s Farhad Manjoo (Oct. 14): Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, told Times reporter David Johnston that the judge’s ruling “should clear the way for The Times to do what we’ve been yearning to do: tell the story.” Asked by Salon to clarify this statement — did Keller mean that Miller would talk to Times reporters who are charged to investigate her role in the Plame case? — Keller was cagey: “If you’re patient, you’ll read your answer in our paper,” he wrote in an e-mail. (Miller’s attorneys did not return calls for comment.) Reverse it: If Miller were cooperating, would Keller say anything like that? “Be patient, and your answer will be in the paper.” No, he would not. He’s saying to Manjoo there’s some “story” there. His caginess counts for The Hypothesis. We move on to the subtler areas like: what’s left out? The Times article by David Johnston announced that the contempt finding has been lifted. Big news involving Judith Miller, right? But it mentions nothing about Miller agreeing to cooperate. The subject is avoided. Of equal interest to The Hypothesis: Miller, the protagonist, is talked about throughout the story, but she isn’t in the story at all. No innocent quotes. No telling quotes. Hmmm. David Johnston didn’t have her cell phone number? No. She didn’t want to comment, or they didn’t want to ask her. Why? We don’t know why. (Here’s some fact-filled speculation.) But this too counts as evidence for. By nature The Hypothesis is at risk for reading too much into things, or as a student of mine once said, “chewing more than we’ve bit off.” Nonetheless, it was struck by the precise way Jonathan Landman worded something in an Observer article a few days ago. He was explaining why the report was delayed, and clarifying what Bill Keller had said in a memo to staff. “What Bill is talking about is not when we can write a story,” Mr. Landman said. “What he is talking about is when [Ms. Miller] can be expected to tell what happened.” The Times story is ready to go, he’s (almost) saying. It’s just waiting for the point where Judy Miller “can be expected to tell what happened.” Note how the “expected” point is reached whether or not Miller talks to the Times. That is why he worded it that way, says The Hypothesis. It’s legalistic, and also precise. These are clues. The Hypothesis senses you’d like more evidence. Well, I was interviewed in David Folkenflik’s report for NPR’s “Morning Edition,” Oct. 13. (You can listen here. He asked me to read the opening lines of my post where I said the Washington Post is the flagship now.) Folkenflik reveals that Miller had agreed to an interview with him. Then a corporate spokesperson called and said sorry, no go. The Hypothesis smiled when it heard that. It could have predicted the call. Judy Miller wants to avoid tough, wide open questioning from peers, even though another part of her wants to speak out for a national shield law, and to the issue of protecting sources. Given that, the Hypothesis was, well, surprised to learn that on Tuesday the Society of Professional Journalists is planning to give Judy Miller a First Amendment award—no lie—at its Las Vegas convention, and she’s going to speak, and there will be a panel discussion. From a SPJ mailing list: New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was jailed for four months for refusing to reveal a confidential source, will speak at SPJ’s national conference [in Las Vegas] at 8:15- 9 a.m., Oct. 18. Following the speech, Miller will receive a First Amendment Award and join a panel discussion titled “The Reporter’s Privilege Under Siege.” Joining her on the panel will be Associated Press reporter Josef Hebert, Patricia Hurtado of Newsday and Bruce Sanford of Baker and Hostetler. Don’t miss it. Steve Lovelady and Paul McLeary didn’t. Their angry and well-reasoned piece in CJR Daily is mostly about the Times (“its silence on the matter has moved into the realm of the absurd”) but adds this: In a late twist that left reporters and editors across the country raising their eyebrows, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) revealed that it doesn’t share the discontent of many in the industry over the confounding way the Miller case has unfolded. In fact, it is bringing Miller in to speak at its national conference next week. After she speaks, it plans on presenting her with its “First Amendment Award” convening a panel discussion titled “The Reporter’s Privilege Under Siege.” Read them. Frankly, I would be surprised if this engagement were kept. It’s strange to me that SPJ would plan it without knowing what will be revealed in the Times report. Normal prudence would seem to say: wait and see. Especially since in August the American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) had to reverse a committee decision to give Miller a Conscience in Media award. And this was before the questions surrounding her release, the late discovery of notes, the refusal to answer reporters’ questions, the celebrity-style TV appearances. If AJSA thought better of it, what was SPJ thinking? Anyway, for The Hypothesis it will count against if she shows, and for if she cancels. But there’s an earlier test, according to Dan Gillmor: Miller will be speaking this weekend — or so I’ve been told — at the California First Amendment Coalition’s annual Open Government Assembly in Fullerton, California. I’m heading down there tomorrow (doing a keynote and a panel), and will be fascinated to see what California journalists’ reaction is to her. No kidding. (Update: she’s not speaking, Dan says.) The Hypothesis will be watching. So will others. Title for the conference: “Unlocking government for the public and the press & the blogs.” Some think that’s what the Miller case is all about. Several people have suggested to me that she will put herself in the situation—show up to these forums—then try to set rules on what can and cannot be discussed. Hypothesis Lite. Risky, but plausible. I know you are not, but if you were Judith Miller, and Jonathan Landman’s team was readying for publication the most important article in your career, on which your entire reputation for the moment rests; and if you were cooperating with that team, because you were vitally concerned that the story come out fair and right, would you be winging it to California for the weekend? Or would you want to be in that hotel room where they’re supposed to be bulletproofing the story? By the way, I asked a Times Person (TP) this week, “what would happen if she just refused?” TP said she would be fired for sure. Finally, The Hypothesis was struck by something public editor Barney Calame said when he finally spoke up about the missing journalism. I applaud him for it; there was an edge in his voice too. “As public editor, I have been asking some basic questions of the key players at The Times since July 12,” he wrote. “But they declined to fully respond to my fundamental questions because, they said, of the legal entanglements of Ms. Miller and the paper.” It’s that phrase: and the paper… He may be saying that the New York Times Company had a possible legal entanglement, which might have been affected by publishing virtually anything about Miller, including a column from Calame about the situation preventing publication. This would explain a lot. But isn’t that like self-inflicted prior restraint? After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Washington Post story today: A team of Times reporters is preparing a report on Miller’s role in the saga that could be published as early as tomorrow. Until a contempt-of-court citation against her was lifted, Miller refused to tell her story to the paper on the advice of her lawyers. But Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said yesterday that Miller is now cooperating with fellow reporters on the story. Certainly counts against The Hypothesis. Got a data point? E-mail PressThink. Dan Gillmor is at the California First Amendment Coalition conference where Judith Miller was to speak (or so he was told.) He now reports (Oct. 15) that Miller “will present an award here later today but, an organizer tells me, isn’t going to speak about her case or answer questions.” Floyd Abrams is speaking. That counts (indirectly) for The Hypothesis, unless she was never supposed to speak or answer questions in the first place. The muck… In comments, blogger and ex-journalist Billmon waxes historical: I was reading about the Pentagon Papers case last night, and it brought home for me how low the mighty have fallen. The arc from that moment to this one — from Neil Sheehan and his sources to Judy Miller and hers — also traces the long, sad decline of “respectable” American journalism. I guess the early ’70s were just an aberration — a brief Prague Spring for an institution that’s never been comfortable being in opposition, even in situations where telling the truth automatically makes you part of the opposition. Here’s another despairing Times loyalist: Editor & Publisher columnist William Jackson. “The Times has been my daily companion for half a century, as I studied, taught, and practiced politics and foreign policy.” But now… “We have observed the selling of the birthright of The New York Times… For this citizen, it is a sad, and repulsive, sight.” EditorsWeblog: The Grey Lady to shrink format? PressThink reader and writer Weldon Berger at BTC News: “…someone at the paper has been sitting on this latest powder keg since July of 2003, when Miller didn’t write the story for which she met with Libby and possibly other sources as well, and when the scandal erupted.” Nothing to do with the Times or Miller: The Anchoress, described as “one of the blogosphere’s most mysterious and interesting voices,” did a guest shot at CBS’s Public Eye, as I did a month ago. She watched the evening news and wrote about what surprised her.
Posted by Jay Rosen at October 14, 2005 2:11 PM
Comments
No way will she submit to NYT questioning. At best, she will hand them a written statement prepared by her lawyer. And if that's all they can get out of Judy, why would they bother to write the story? The better question: Will Judy still be an employee of the Times, come Sunday night? I doubt it. I wrote their ombudsman and suggested that the Times forget about writing this story - no one will believe it. Their credibility isn't at stake -- it's demolished. The only thing they could do now is submit to an independent investigation - hand the story to another newspaper, like WaPo, and cooperate fully with them. Posted by: Libby Sosume at October 14, 2005 2:51 PM | Permalink Were I Judith Miller, I'd hope to God I wouldn't have based a sequence of stories on WMD on anonymous government sources and an Iraqi conman the way she did. And once those stories were demonstrated by intel types and others to be a sham, I'd hope for the grace to report it that way. But that didn't happen. Will she talk to the Times reporter waiting patiently to tell her story? I don't think so. Ms Miller appears to be to busy making movies about St. Judy, Intrepid Guardian of the Truth to deal with facts. Or reality. Will she show up for SPJ? Probably, as long as there are no questions allowed afterward. Will SPJ give her the award? I don't see that they can easily back out now. It will be a serious body blow to another journalistic organization. And will the Times management sweat bullets, waiting for Judy to give an interview? You betcha. Posted by: Dave McLemore at October 14, 2005 2:59 PM | Permalink Meanwhile, why haven't the Times' stable of columnist pitched in on the Miller's Tale? According to E&P, John Tierney doesn't have much to say. Tom Friedman doesn't do domestic stories. Frank Rich and Nicholas Kristoff are waiting for the facts. And Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert didn't feel like talking to E&P. And no one, not a soul, however, felt any pressure from Times management not to discuss Ms. Miller. Maybe so. Maybe folks at the Times are simply traumatized by witnessing this train-wreck of a mess, they don't know what to say. Or they don't know what to think. Or maybe you really don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Posted by: Dave McLemore at October 14, 2005 3:14 PM | Permalink I think Miller will talk to Landman and his crew, but will only discuss her "ordeal" in prison and her grand jury testimony (since that is going to come out anyway), she might as well get first crack at spinning it. She won't talk about her other "sources", or address the questions (such as her relationship with various government officials) that would at least explain, if not "justify", her actions. In other words, i think the hypothesis may need tweaking, but is correct overall, because what is required for the Times to regain its credibility is Miller's full co-operation, and Landman won't be getting it. I think Libby Sosume is correct----no one will believe the Landman team report and it needs to be submitted to an independent investigation. After all this, what credibility does NYTimes have? Posted by: kilgore trout at October 14, 2005 3:37 PM | Permalink To build on Ami's point, Miller claims she was in jail to prevent Fitzgerald from fishing for information about anyone she talked to in the Bush administration aside from Libby. But those are exactly the contacts she would have to discuss to even begin to lower suspicions she was a Bush team mole operating out of the New York Times' offices. The real question for me is, when she refuses to cooperate do Keller and Sulzberger turn a whiter shade of pale because they've been duped, or do they just grin and bear it because that is the mission they knowingly signed up for when they started making her case to the Vatican on the editorial page? Perhaps it won't be a Procul Harum moment at all, but rather a blackface minstrelsy Al Jolson moment? Posted by: Mark Anderson at October 14, 2005 3:47 PM | Permalink So is SPJ going to give Miller that award even if she's under indictment? The only way for the Times to earn back any credibility would be to: 1.) Publically purge itself of its employees who, in addition to writing or editing for the newspaper, are also working undercover for nefarious government/thinktanks/agencies/lobby groups. (Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman aren't the only ones.) The editor (and Iraq War supporter) Bill Keller should be fired for poor judgement. Pinch Sulzberger should resign. 2.) The paper must provide its readers with extensive and honest reports on exactly how this wretched situation came to pass. 4.) The paper's new editors and new publisher should then formally apologize for the role their newspaper played in helping to bring about the biggest foreign policy disaster in United States history -- the neocon War against Iraq. Do I think any of this will come to pass? No. Sadly, I think they'll quietly let Miller go, and then rationalize their own roles in all that transpired before. If they take that pathetic diversion, the New York Times will go down in history, forever tainted with the bloody stench of this neocon war monger administration.
Posted by: The Old School at October 14, 2005 5:28 PM | Permalink I think we all know the truth. The corruption is at the top. Judy wouldn't have gotten away with this crap for so long unless she was being protected. The board has to take action. If they are unsure about the above, then at least they should force PS and BK to recuse themselves, and turn the reporting over to a third party team, then wait for the results of that investigation. No disrespect intended toward the Landman team, but how can anyone believe that they are insulated from corporate pressure? I'm sure WaPo or others would be only too happy to fly a team up to New York and work 24/7. If they (NYT) don't take drastic action, then NYT will go the way of CBS. Posted by: Libby Sosume at October 14, 2005 5:59 PM | Permalink Just wrote this up for my blog.
There are lots of interesting things going on in media circles in the last few days - including Karl Rove testifying again today - but I don't have the time or energy to write up a new media column this week. Instead I'm preparing some school projects and hoping to get at least 8 hours of sleep tonight. Besides the main topic is the same the one I wrote about last week ("Stop getting scooped!") and the week before, namely Judith Miller, the New York Times and related problems. And while I still wish Rove and Novak would explain their actions, I don't expect that to happen. But reports that expectations of court Miller now has the legal right to spill the beans and answer all the questions I, Jay Rosen and others have asked. But my guess is she'll stick with preferring to play the quiet martyr role instead of explaining what is going on and what transpired. Here's a few good reads on the topic: - Why the heck is Judith Miller getting a first amendment award considering how much her actions are hurting, not helping, the media community. - New York Times columnists give a lame explanation on why they are not writing about the Miller situation. - The best posts and discussion I've seen on the issue continue to occur at Jay Rosen's Press Think. - The Columbia Journalism Review's Web site continues to do some of the best reporting on this issue, including with this piece on the silence/stink that still permeates at the Times about Miller. As I alluded to last week, the morale is dropping at the Times, which Howard Kurtz wrote about Thursday. --------------- In more or less important topics, depending on your perspective: - The next James Bond actor has been chosen: Daniel Craig. And he's blond! - Richard Goldstein, a long-time editor at the Village Voice, has sued it for sexual harassment over his sexual orientation. The Smoking Gun has the details about the suit which also alleges age discrimination. - Captain Ed writes good blogs about the Miers nomination and about a Washington Post story on Bush polling among blacks to which he objected. - Michelle Malkin remains furious with the news media. What else is new. This time her beefs include Mike Wallace and the American media's coverage of the war. - Meanwhile there is a wonderful snarky - though a bit mean - blog about Jeff Posted by: Scott Butki at October 14, 2005 6:51 PM | Permalink In the absence of substantive written words from the Times, we are left trying to make sense of those weirdly staged photos from the prison break, with everyone beaming at everyone, Keller looking like his head is about to pop, The Publisher looking like an embarrassed and awkward shoe-gazer, and Miller with those Frank White eyes. . . Second verse, same as the first. . . and oh I don't why, oh I don't know why. . . .Third verse, different from the first? Posted by: Mark J. McPherson at October 14, 2005 6:58 PM | Permalink Question for the themers: is it an epic or a farce? Some say PressThink has overdone it: five posts! Discuss if you care to. I say, no: this deserves it, there's silence coming from the Times, it's a huge cultural moment for "the press," since it involves the High Church and everyone in mainstream journalism is talking about it for chrisssakes. I don't see SPJ getting away with both the event and its rep entact. Things rarely happen as planned. Keep that in mind. I'm growing more convinced that it's some form of legal jeopardy involving the Times that's the "secret" here, or one of them. It accounts for the data-- but not all of course. Possibly had to do with possession of the notes, like the Times would be held in contempt because Miller did not produce them. Maybe something like that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 14, 2005 7:14 PM | Permalink I'm growing more convinced that it's some form of legal jeopardy involving the Times that's the "secret" here, or one of them. This is a perfect example of why the NYT should have long since reported its story. The longer they remain silent, the worse the construction will be placed on their silence. I think they can write a good story even without Miller's input. After all, they have every other piece of the NYT puzzle, so they can regain control of the story. However, it will look mighty particular if Miller won't consent to an interview with her own paper. Clearly she has very powerful patrons. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 14, 2005 7:41 PM | Permalink Naw. It's doubtful the Times is in any real legal jeopardy. (Granted, corporate attorneys tend to worry about legal jeopardy if you sneeze.) The Times has been letting Judy run around without any adult supervision. They can hardly be charged with conspiracy or perjury if they didn't know what the heck was going on. Malfeasance, yes. It's Judy who is in jeopardy. She is liable to be charged as part of the conspiracy, now that her involvement proveably goes back before Wilson's column. So she probably pleaded the 5th. That's about all that could have been accomplished in a mere hour in front of the jury. Therefore, her lawyers have told her to keep her mouth shut, and that is why the Times will not get an interview out of her. The Times will produce no story on Sunday, other than that of her resignation. The Times could do a different story, with Judy as a villain, but that would have near-zero credibility given their apparent corporate and journalistic malfeasance. The best thing is to accept the editor and publisher's resignations, then allow someone else to do the story in the manner of an independent investigation. A big mea culpa, a new code of ethics, new management -- and they might be on the road to recovery. All just my opinion based on armchair speculation of course - but best fits the facts as we know them. Posted by: Libby Sosume at October 14, 2005 7:44 PM | Permalink Jay: Seriously, though, this topic definitely warrants all of this attention in that I think this is leading to one of three things:
Posted by: Scott Butki at October 14, 2005 7:45 PM | Permalink Jay: I'm sure some here would love to talk more in depth about this matter of bombings and bomb threats in Oklahoma and on the West Coast and questions about whether there has been sufficient media coverage of the matter. And then there is this fun story to write about which is a perfect demonstration of why I gave up on tv news for the most part: Stupid photo-ops. It doesn't help that Chris Matthews is making a guest appearance on The West Wing, further blurring the line between journalism and entertainment. All this while Anderson Cooper continues his odd habit of out-emoting Geraldo Rivera every chance he gets. What he thinks this is accomplishing is not exactly clear. And people wonder why there is so little media For next week I'm hoping to have something positive to report. I'd ask you to cross your fingers but that does make it hard to type. And yes, I know because I've tried it. Posted by: Scott Butki at October 14, 2005 8:26 PM | Permalink At this point, it's hard to see how the Times emerges from this without shame, even if Miller is guilty of nothing more than letting the neocons use her as a willing conduit for disinformation -- about the WMD threat in Iraq, if not Joe Wilson and his wife. I was reading about the Pentagon Papers case last night, and it brought home for me how low the mighty have fallen. The arc from that moment to this one -- from Neil Sheehan and his sources to Judy Miller and hers -- also traces the long, sad decline of "respectable" American journalism. I guess the early '70s were just an aberration -- a brief Prague Spring for an institution that's never been comfortable being in opposition, even in situations where telling the truth automatically makes you part of the opposition. I can't decide if Miller is, like Bob Novak and Fox News, a throwback to the older era of partisan operatives, or the vanguard of some new type -- the reporter as information warfare specialist. Probably a mixture of both. From the muck the profession arose and to the muck it shall return. Jay, I think your earlier post on the Times slipping behind the Washington Post also pushes toward that point--it sends a message that there ARE consequences for these systematic breakdowns, the loss of their readers' respect and their institutional prestige. "Dear New York Times, this is what you look like in the mirror and why you have lost this reader's respect. If you don't like the view, do something about it." Posted by: Mark Anderson at October 14, 2005 11:02 PM | Permalink Bill: You hit it square on the head with "an institution that's never been comfortable being in opposition, even in situations where telling the truth automatically makes you part of the opposition." That is a political puzzle the American press has never solved. I would add "situations in which powerful actors are treating you as the opposition" because--to them--you are. Also unsolved. I wrote a post that tested some of this Are Headed for an Opposition Press? See the follow-up with reactions, among them this choice passage from David Shaw of the LA Times (liberal newspaper man, hated my idea): When I asked the folks at CNN what they thought of the idea, Jim Walton, president of the CNN News Group, shot back, “Under no circumstances would we do that. We’ve established that we’re a trusted network. We’ve done that by trying to provide balance … to be independent in our thinking.” Let's remember that in the newspaper's memory Miller had been right about Al Qeda and 09/11. That she was wrong about WMD's discredits her in your eyes (lots of you, that is...) but I think inside the Times it's a more complicated thing. She's remembered for getting it right a lot too, and having great sources in the Middle East. One of the most striking things to me: how incapable the organization is of having any kind of discussion with its readers, or among editors with different shades of opinion, or between the staff and the bosses. It's a kingdom of fear, seems like. Simple exchanges with no legal consequences like, "Here's what the hold up is about, folks" are beyond the newspaper. Still no one from the newsroom has addressed a single note to readers on the missing Miller journalism. Only one staff reporter--one!--has been willing to go on the record about the whole thing. What does that say about the people in the newsroom and the support they have from their supervisors? Of course we may see an outburst once the big report comes out. Wild card: Byron Calame. He'll get to weigh in on the Friday after the release, with six days of discussion online and in the press. (Friday deadline, Sunday column.) If the report flunks scrutiny I believe he will say so, on behalf of readers. And he could get quite nasty about it, naming names. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 12:20 AM | Permalink Judith Miller did, through her contacts, get a lot right. But what she got wrong was hugely so. It's axiomatic in the news game that any reporter is only as good as their last story. And Judy's last one was a doozey. But, Jay, the Times does not explain itself. Nor does it apologize. There is more at work here than some institutional arrogance. It's closer to some weird form of noblesse oblige. Falling back on its reputation, the Times says, "We'll tell you the news we think appropriate when we damn well want to. You'll just have to be patient." But we don't. I tend to think the Judith Miller time is expotentionally more damaging to the Times and to journalism generally than Jayson Blair ever dreamed about being. For it strikes at the essentials of what a newspaper does for its readers. And it grievously - and unnecessarily - wounds the Times' staff. Can the Times refurbish its reputation? I don't know. Much depends on how the finally report Judy Miller's story. And each day they don't, the harder it will be. Posted by: Dave McLemore at October 15, 2005 12:47 AM | Permalink Thanks for the nod, Jay. I'm leaning toward the notion that the Times has come in for some legal troubles because it's tough to figure out why the management would have been so uncooperative with Jehl when he was trying to report the story — he can't be a happy camper if he's not in on the story allegedly underway now — and I don't understand why the paper didn't come in for a contempt citation the way Time Magazine did with Cooper. What I'm thinking with respect to the quote you pulled from my post is that if Miller pitched her unwritten story to an editor, whoever that was knows a lot about what she was up to at the time. One of the things that hasn't received a lot of attention is that by attacking the administration's handling of prewar intelligence, Joe Wilson was not all that indirectly attacking Miller's at that time not entirely discredited reporting, and in her own paper at that. If I were her, I'd be pissed off and from what I hear, she isn't the sort to suffer in silence. One would think the story would originate from the Washington Bureau, which was headed by Miller supporter Jill Abramson until July 31, 2003. Anyway. I guess we'll see, or not, in a day or two. Miller is obviously runined as a reporter. I hope the Times can at least figure out that much. Posted by: weldon berger at October 15, 2005 1:07 AM | Permalink I'm growing more convinced that it's some form of legal jeopardy involving the Times that's the "secret" here, or one of them. It accounts for the data-- but not all of course. The problem with this theory is that everyone (most notably, Calame) has gone on the record to say that there has been "no pressure" to not write about the Miller affair. If there was "no pressure" where would Calame get the notion that the Times itself had "legal entanglements?" Because the Times was never under supoena, it had no "current" legal entanglements --- unless, of course, Keller and Sulzberger were actively conspiring with Miller to obstruct justice by withholding key evidence from Fitzgerald aka "The June 23 Notes". And since speculation seems to be the order of the day, allow me to offer this theory --- Miller, Keller, Sulzberger, and most importantly Abrams knew about the June Notes but had kept their existence a secret. When Miller testified to the Grand Jury, she said/implied something (perhaps some kind of blanket denial of other conversations concerning Wilson) that compelled Abrams to have the Notes "found" and turned over to the Prosecutor in order to avoid "legal entanglements" not just for the Times, but for himself. (If Abrams knew that Miller had made false statements to the grand jury, and there was evidence of it, he would have had to report it.) But according to Calame, he wasn't told about anything that would constitute "pressure" -- his attitude was no different from the Times "op-ed" columnists whose positions have been "I've got nothing unique to say on the subject at this time, and don't want to discuss it until all the facts are out". (As if Times columnists never repeat conventional wisdom, or engage in speculation without all the facts!) Calame had an obligation to address the issue well before it blew up completely in the Times face---an obligation that he ignored. The whole question of whether Miller deserved the "First Amendment Martyr" label that the Times conferred upon her had been controversial for months----but not only did the Times provide only one side of the argument in its editorials and from its columnists (Safire, Dole), it published almost nothing of the opposing viewpoint when expressed by letter writers. THAT is something that Calame should have been addressing, and he didn't----and no "legal entanglements" arguments are relevant to those issues. That is the elephant in the room as far as Calame is concerned. Calame wastes his time writing puff pieces about how Times staffers perceive their readership, or obsessing over whether an opinion writer's conclusions regarding the Florida recount data is "true" or not (and Krugman's conclusions were supported by the data, even if partisans could "spin" the data differently), rather than dealing with the big issues confronting the Times. The fact that he cites "legal entanglements" for the Times at the same time he claims he has been under no pressure to avoid addressing the Miller issue just shows how dishonest he is. I ended up turning my answers to your quesiton into my media column, Jay. Added a few thoughts there too. It is here. Later I wrote up a new piece which I think you'll enjoy where I come up with the perfect real justice for journalists like Judy Miller. Posted by: Scott Butki at October 15, 2005 9:52 AM | Permalink Dave: I think you are very right when you paraphrase the attitude as "We'll tell you the news we think appropriate when we damn well want to. You'll just have to be patient." It's very 1987, and it's hurt them a lot. Just not the way the world works anymore. Keller's actually lucky there haven't been more leaks. His staff must basically like him, whereas with Raines... ami: I bet "no pressure" means to Calame: "I make my own decisions, no one intimidates me." He may have made his own decisions about the paper's legal jeopardy, after having had the situation explained to him by Abrams and others. I agree there were many issues he could have addressed in the paper or his web journal; he may have felt that if he couldn't say what he knew, saying nothing would better, less misleading. That's the thing about secrets. Once you ingest them they spread silence over what they did not at first touch. Look how "Judy's sources" silenced one of the world's greatest newspapers-- with 1,000+ journalists! Anyway, Calame does not strike me as easily intimidated. And right now he's one of the most powerful people at the New York Times. I think what the Times hierachy failed to grasp throughout this episode is that when there's a gap between what the paper knows and what the papers tells, it starts eating away at trust and sowing danger from moment one. When the gap becomes public, as it did here, and then intensely public, as it did here, the damage is not of the type that repairs itself when the full story is finally told. They decided to focus on telling the eventual truth, ignoring what was happening to their truthtelling credentials in the present moment. Keller's attitude, "be patient, you'll get it when we decide you can have it" is shockingly naieve. But one thing I have learned in studying big time journalists and their ideas is their own self-image as society's crap-detectors leaves them vulnerable to some whopping self-illusions. New possibility: my hypothesis will be essentially right but we'll never know. Here's how: I have been hearing they asked or demanded of Miller that she write a first person piece about what she told the grand jury, figuring she wouldn't fib or mislead because Fitzgerald has what she said and may well put it all in a report. They limit her to that because it's the only part of the story Landman and crew cannot try to get themselves. The Landman team does the story without her, but perhaps she met with them in token fashion (without saying anything) and it can be spun as cooperation. Then with Miller's piece in the package a good face will be put on things. They can avoid firing her. Then in a month or so she resigns to write a book and it looks... not so bad. The Procol Harum moment never comes. Fuzzing it up "works." But that strategy is vulnerable to leaks. Miller has many enemies at the paper and people who are very pissed. I would still be surprised if she shows in Las Vegas and SPJ goes forward with this award. It kind of boggles the mind. Anyone who reads PressThink a member of SPJ? Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 10:02 AM | Permalink Jay.... If you were the Times ombudsman, would you have stayed silent for all these months? Indeed, if you were told about "legal entanglements", would you have not felt an obligation to disclose the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest that was coloring the Times coverage of the issue? From all appearances, Calame falls into the same mindset as those whom you describe as having "failed to grasp is that when there's a gap between what the paper knows and what the papers tells, it starts eating away at trust and sowing danger from moment one." He may not be easily intimidated, but he's "old school", and what he's not "intimidated" by is readers demands for transparency and truth from the Times. "If you were the Times ombudsman, would you have stayed silent for all these months?" No. But that's based on what I know now, which isn't much compared to the hidden picture. I think he is old school, yes. Also there is a subtle difference between looking out for the interests of "the reader" (an abstraction which can be handled) and actual Times readers, citizens who change, demand, speak, exit, express. Old school pays its respects to "the" reader, an idealized type, but doesn't think actual readers have much role to play. I don't know that Calame thinks this way; maybe he doesn't. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 10:55 AM | Permalink I think what the Times hierachy failed to grasp throughout this episode is that when there's a gap between what the paper knows and what the papers tells, it starts eating away at trust and sowing danger from moment one. This cuts to the heart of why anonymous sources should never be used, it amounts to playing a trick on the reader. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 11:09 AM | Permalink I think your earlier post on the Times slipping behind the Washington Post also pushes toward that point--it sends a message that there ARE consequences for these systematic breakdowns, the loss of their readers' respect and their institutional prestige. Can't agree with this. The Washington Post has the dubious distinction of having run Novak's column. They still run his column. This is a huge issue with the intelligence and security agencies in The Post's home delivery market. In fact, everyone with a security clearance in angry about this one, in a way I have never seen before. Richard Cohen's article was breathtaking for its sheer cluelessness. It may very well be that the country as a whole does not care about this (although an editor would be extremely foolish to bet his job on that proposition) but among the worker bees of greater Washington the anger is palpable. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 11:25 AM | Permalink The way this unwinds is positively Shakespearian. As William Jackson notes, Judy, with her WMD articles, "materially contributed to taking The Times out of the business of holding those in power accountable and turned it into a propaganda organ." So now, we're left with an interesting cast of characters. -- Miller herself. Hero for writing about bioterrorism and Al Qaeda before anyone else did. Goat for swallowing the Chalabi-Cheney WMD fiction, and for apparent collusion with Libby, Rove, et. al. in a failed attempt to discredit the Wilson op-ed piece by outing Plame. -- Keller, a hire from the Portland Oregonian, who made his chops with outstanding performances first as Moscow reporter, then as foreign editor and then as managing editor. As executive editor, he finds himself hobbled by the legal strategies of Miller's lawyers. -- Jill Abramson, who, as Washington bureau chief, was Miller's WMD editor, and who was promoted to managing editor by Keller as soon as he got the top job. -- Landman, the go-to guy at the Times whenever you want someone to get to the bottom of things. -- Calame, an outsider, brought in after a long and distinguished career at the Wall Street Journal, to cast a skeptical eye at all of the above. And all of them are seemingly at odds with each other. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any way this can end well for anyone involved. I suspect that Fitzgerald's indictment, when it comes, will be far juicer than anything the Times writes. I also suspect that Scott is correct; the world doesn't care. But, as Jackson says, those of us who remember the Times of Gay Talese, Harrison Salisbury, Max Frankel and Joe Lelyveld do care. We care a lot. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 15, 2005 11:30 AM | Permalink Alice Marshall: This is a huge issue with the intelligence and security agencies in The Post's home delivery market. In fact, everyone with a security clearance i[s] angry about this one, in a way I have never seen before. Really? Everyone? Who? Name names, please. Too me, there is a hint of reverse Pauline Kael in that statement. This cuts to the heart of why anonymous sources should never be used, it amounts to playing a trick on the reader. Too funny. Posted by: Sisyphus at October 15, 2005 11:55 AM | Permalink Washington Post story today: A team of Times reporters is preparing a report on Miller's role in the saga that could be published as early as tomorrow. Until a contempt-of-court citation against her was lifted, Miller refused to tell her story to the paper on the advice of her lawyers. But Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said yesterday that Miller is now cooperating with fellow reporters on the story. We'll see. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 11:57 AM | Permalink Who wants to bet that anything good in that story will be leaked to other paper first? Posted by: Scott Butki at October 15, 2005 11:59 AM | Permalink I didn't read Pauline Kael, so I am not sure what you are referring to. In the course of my work I attend many technology meetings. There is always a get-together before the formal meeting starts. Usually the talk runs along the lines of how-ya-doing, large contracts that are up for bid, talk of mergers, the latest software, that sort of thing. In the years of attending these meetings I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times politics has come up. Until now. People think Novak and those who leaked Plame's name should be tried for treason. It is no good explaining to them that under the constitution no one committed treason. These aren't lawyers. These are engineers and project managers. Most of them have security clearances that they take very seriously and they expect White House personnel to do likewise. No, I am not going to give any names, these were ordinary workers who were not under the impression that they were going to be quoted. Now you can take whatever you want to from this post, but the Washington Post would be extremely ill advised to think that their readers did not consider this to be an extremely serious matter. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 12:09 PM | Permalink As part of a larger blog at PJNet.org on how The New York Times should use the Miller story as a new paradigm I write: I say to Rosen and Huffington, lay off. What’s the rush? And Rosen should know this better than anyone. His own approach to blogging is indeed unrushed, thoughtful and in-depth. Just as they are, I am anxious to read the Miller story because maybe, and this is just a maybe, I can more fully understand what’s happening. Yes I know compared to how they cover others, The Times has given Miller a free ride. But that too should be part of a new paradigm, at least for the Times, instead of hammering away, day after day with the he-said, she- said speculative stories, which only add to the unauthenticated chatter, why not wait and actually say something that truly advances our knowledge. Posted by: Leonard Witt at October 15, 2005 12:17 PM | Permalink It's not only the reporting in (or not in) the NYTimes that is coming under fire, now people are mocking the overblown, faux-literary writing style of the Times reporters. What brought on the Bulwer-Lytton contest in the comment section of Ann Althouse's blog was the Stevenson lame Plame non-story in yesterday's Times that began: Karl Rove nosed his Jaguar out of the garage... Go ahead and check it out, the commenting has been pretty grim here lately, and we could use a few mordant chuckles. Besides, if the Landman thing comes out tomorrow, we'll be speaking of nothing else for days. Go here for comic relief:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/10/karl-rove-nosed-his-jaguar-out-of.html Posted by: kilgore trout at October 15, 2005 1:06 PM | Permalink OK, I appreciate that to criticize the use of anonymous sources and quote unnamed individuals in the very next post was not well done. Let me simply say that in a home delivery market that contains the CIA, the NSA, FBI, DIA, DEA, BATF and so on, it should not require market research to know that betraying the identity of a CIA Case Officer will create customer relations issues to put it mildly. This is not a happy time for the Washington Post. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 1:23 PM | Permalink Alice Marshall, The next time you get the opportunity to discuss leaks with your cohorts, perhaps a way to gauge their anger and frustration is to ask them to compare this leak with others, and how this differs. To name just two recent examples, NSA intercepts and war plans: Jay, do you think there is any reason why Judith Miller should remain on the New York Times payroll? And if yes, shuold she ever be allowed near the White House beat again? Posted by: Scott Butki at October 15, 2005 2:24 PM | Permalink I'm normally just a lurker here, but on this one I do have a few comments and questions. First, to Jay, thanks for this forum. It is always a mental exercise for me one way or another and for that I am thankful. Second, to Steve Lovelady, my estimation of you went up hugely reading your Friday story at CJR. I have long considered your comments here frustrating, obtuse, and at times, willfully ignoring to answer what other commenters have said. I can now leave all of that aside and say that for now I understand how deeply you care for journalism, even if I disagree with your take on things the other 99% of the time. To Alice Marshall, I love your writing at Technoflak as well but on this one I think Sisyphus completely called your bluff. To say essentially that "these normal, security-clearanced" folks weren't expecting to be quoted is akin to what I've just now given Mr. Lovelady credit for: if they have clearances and should not be speaking, even if in private, about said clearances or any matters related to or covered by those clearances, they have no right to expect not to be quoted. They have just broken the same rules (laws?) they received clearance for. For you not to quote them is simply wrong on all counts and I lean firmly toward Sisyphus's view that it is funny, if not shrewd, on your part to take the weasel way out of this one. Still, glass houses and all. So, now for the commentary. The NYT is a public company, and I have not seen anyone address that aspect of the storyline yet. Yes, corporate attorneys, private attorneys, et. al. have been mentioned, but no one has discussed the fiduciary duty that the corporation has to its shareholders. That, to me, is something I would like to hear about from better minds than mine (that includes 99% of all commenters here, I will freely admit, whether I agree with your political tack or not). What I do know of corporate law stipulates that anything that could potentially affect the NYT's stock price, up or down, must legally be disclosed asap. Total speculation here on my part, but I would guess that if all of this results in any material change of leadership, or anything like the NYT wire service losing clients (based on downstream news outlets declining to renew their licenses because of readership loss or commentary), that adds an element again I've not seen discussed by anyone here to the fiduciary duty of the NYTCO. It may or may not affect what the NYT paper can or can't report on, but I'm willing to bet there is something larger to the legal wranglings, at least from the corporate view. I would welcome postulations from other commenters. And, now that I've waded into a river of thinking probably too deep for me to be in, I'll go back to lurking and seeing if anyone can provide insights where my knowledge is not honed enough to know better. Posted by: Mark at October 15, 2005 2:32 PM | Permalink The next time you get the opportunity to discuss leaks with your cohorts, perhaps a way to gauge their anger and frustration is to ask them to compare this leak with others, and how this differs. Are you referring to the story that appeared in the Washington Times? Yes, had we nailed the person who leaked that, the Plame leak would never have happened. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 2:33 PM | Permalink For a blog item today I decided to look at this issue from another perspective.
And that name is spokesman and spokeswoman. Ironically these mute spokespeople are most unhelpful after some juicy info was leaked that made an institution look bad and is often accompanied by a memo discouraging employees from talking to the media. So... using what I've been learning in my physics and statistics and educational science I have reached a hypothesis of my own: And unfortunately in this case - unlike most instances when such a system is in place - others don't seem willing to go on the record with what is really going When you consider the New York Times got into this mess because of leaking in the first place and Miller didn't even write a story for God's sake, well, I think there is only one logical next step. And that step is for Miller to get on a government committee with Jayson Blair (plagarist), Robert Novak (deceitful windbag), and others who need to a refresher course on what it is journalists do. Example from their first session: Check facts before printing them not act as stooges for anonymous sources, etc. I'd nominate Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame - the real victims in this whole Miller mess - to be in charge of the committee and let those two decide if the "journalists/apologists" should In Miller's case my suggestion is her immediate termination from the Times since she appears to be helping the paper restore needed credibility about as much as Dan Quayle helped Bush senior get taken seriously. For extra credit each committee member will have to leak something to the media and then ask the source if they will go to jail to protect them.... I go on to connect Miller to Courntey Love and Howard Kurtz which I consider a blogger's version of a hat trick Posted by: Scott Butki at October 15, 2005 3:09 PM | Permalink Oh Steve, I keep meaning to tell you that I love the lede you had for this piece you and Paul wrote.
Posted by: Scott Butki at October 15, 2005 3:15 PM | Permalink hmmm I tried to keep an open mind about Calame - and I certainly appreciated his eagerness to start his job - but he seems to be speaking for only a small segment of the Times readership. I disliked Okrent...but at least he didn't politicize his position as Byron seems to do in nearly every one of his blog posts: public editor. My guess is his real beef is why didn't Miller attack Wilson in June of 2003 instead of not writing about it. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at October 15, 2005 3:23 PM | Permalink Alice Marshall, I love your writing at Technoflak as well but on this one I think Sisyphus completely called your bluff. To say essentially that "these normal, security-clearanced" folks weren't expecting to be quoted is akin to what I've just now given Mr. Lovelady credit for: if they have clearances and should not be speaking, even if in private, about said clearances or any matters related to or covered by those clearances, they have no right to expect not to be quoted. They have just broken the same rules (laws?) they received clearance for. For you not to quote them is simply wrong on all counts and I lean firmly toward Sisyphus's view that it is funny, if not shrewd, on your part to take the weasel way out of this one. Still, glass houses and all. People with security clearances never speak about their work except in the vaguest terms, as in I work for the Navy or I work for SAIC, etc. (I should say that in most cases I have inferred that they have security clearances) And they have as much right to talk about any item in the newspaper as anyone else. We are talking about pre-meeting chatter. My point seems to have been lost. They are not happy with their hometown newspaper. Now I have a vested interest in the continued success of the Washington Post, so I would like to see the Washington Post turn this around. Posted by: Alice Marshall at October 15, 2005 3:29 PM | Permalink Dan Gillmor is at the California First Amendment Coalition conference where Judith Miller was to speak, according to what he was told yesterday. Now he reports that Miller "will present an award here later today but, an organizer tells me, isn't going to speak about her case or answer questions." Floyd Abrams is speaking. I'm going to e-mail Dan and get more information. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 4:29 PM | Permalink Mark -- Ummmm, thanks. As per corporate law ... I don't think any of this, so far, materially affects the NYT's stock price, up or down. True, the Times' stock is in the tank -- but I'm told by the financial guru who lives next door to me that the stock's swoon has more to do with the NYT's fumbling performance in trying to establish an Internet presence than it has to do with anything else. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 15, 2005 4:42 PM | Permalink kilgore, that is hilarious, Rove and his Jag. What on earth are they thinking over there on 43rd St? Here's the Times report. Reading now. "In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes." That's what Catherine Mathis means by cooperation, then. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 4:50 PM | Permalink Kilgore, you get the award for the best link ever, hands down. Karl Rove had a feeling of deep foreboding as he nosed his Jaguar out of the garage at his home in Northwest Washington in the predawn gloom. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 15, 2005 4:55 PM | Permalink Read Judy's article, read the Times article, read Dan Gillmor's notes from Cali. The Times folks came as close as they could to outright calling Miller a liar. At least that's the way I read it. It seemed clear they don't buy her story in the least. Posted by: Greg Burton at October 15, 2005 5:06 PM | Permalink Wow. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at October 15, 2005 6:06 PM | Permalink The first word that came into my mind to describe the Times piece on Miller was "mushy." Considering the number of words used, there is relatively little of any real substance to the piece. My "bullshit" meter did go off the charts when I read this particular passage.... Ms. Miller had written a string of articles before the war - often based on the accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors - strongly suggesting that Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction. "Often" based on the 'accounts of Bush administration officials and Iraqi defectors'?!!?!? "Strongly suggesting" that 'Saddam Hussein was developing these weapons of mass destruction'?!?!?! there is a time for understatement....this wasn't it. *********************** On my pet issue, the article certainly gives no indication that the Times itself had "legal entanglements" that prevented it (and Byron Calame) from doing its (and his) job. The story "strongly suggests" (i.e. "says") that Keller and Sulzburger never demanded to know from Miller what it was she was "protecting", and whether it really was worthy of putting the full force of the Times' reputation behind Miller. Miller claimed she was acting on principle, and Pinch and Keller just took her at her word. So what are these fabled "legal entanglements" for the newspaper that kept Calame from writing about the subject? Its starting to look like the Times may need someone to act as the Ombudsman for its own Ombudsman.... Much more interesting that the "Landman" team piece is Miller's own account. It turns out that Miller hardly knows Libby... and that Miller herself perceived Libby's letter as appearing to try and influence her testimony. Certainly, the "chummy" tone taken in Libby's letter is at odds with the fact that the two of them were not "friends"....
I see the hypothesis as flat on its face, lying next to Wilson's credibility. In this case, as in so much else--it comes down to who you want to believe and who you want to feel is a liar, and how paranoid one is when reading between the lines. Steve is of the Bush-hating, Miller-despising crowd, so he sees one reality. I am of the Bush-neutral, Miller-not-sure-what-to-make-of-her-crowd, so I see another. I see Wilson as a self-promoting fool. So that's where I'm coming from. But I am waiting for people smarter than me to say what these two articles mean. Posted by: Lee Kane at October 15, 2005 6:50 PM | Permalink Lee: The hypothesis was that Miller would not materially cooperate with Times reporters. The article says she didn't. New post, everyone. Go there to comment on the report and the Miller piece. Times Report on Judith Miller is Up: Key Passages Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 15, 2005 7:07 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
