NYT Public Editor: The Miller Mess: Lingering Issues Among the Answers

[DeepModem Mom]

The Public Editor
The Miller Mess: Lingering Issues Among the Answers
By BYRON CALAME
Published: October 23, 2005


THE good news is that the bad news didn't stop The New York Times from publishing a lengthy front-page article last Sunday about the issues facing Judith Miller and the paper, or from pushing Ms. Miller to give readers a first-person account of her grand jury testimony.

The details laid out in the commendable 6,200-word article by a special team of reporters and editors led by the paper's deputy managing editor answered most of my fundamental questions. At issue, of course, was Ms. Miller's refusal to divulge her confidential sources to the grand jury investigating who had leaked the identity of a C.I.A. undercover operative. But the article and Ms. Miller's account also uncovered new information that suggested the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I had feared.

The Times must now face up to three major concerns raised by the leak investigation: First, the tendency by top editors to move cautiously to correct problems about prewar coverage. Second, the journalistic shortcuts taken by Ms. Miller. And third, the deferential treatment of Ms. Miller by editors who failed to dig into problems before they became a mess.

To begin considering the handling of Ms. Miller and this whole episode, it is necessary to step back more than two years. Ms. Miller may still be best known for her role in a series of Times articles in 2002 and 2003 that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Howell Raines was then the executive editor of The Times, and several articles about weapons of mass destruction were displayed prominently in the paper. Many of those articles turned out to be inaccurate.

By the spring of 2003, the newsroom was overwhelmed by the Jayson Blair fiasco, and Mr. Raines and the managing editor, Gerald Boyd, left the paper. When Bill Keller became executive editor on July 30, 2003, he focused on dealing with the trauma of the Blair scandal. Nevertheless, with questions growing about weapons in Iraq, he told Ms. Miller she could no longer cover those issues. But it took until May 2004 - more than a year after the war started and about a year after it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - before The Times acknowledged in an editors' note that the coverage was flawed. Mr. Keller then directed her to stay away from all national security issues....

(NOTE: Mr. Calame ends his column by addressing Judith Miller's future: " It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.")


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/opinion/23publiceditor.html?hp

[acmavm]

1. Still soft pedaling the fact that the NYT intentionally allowed Judy

to deceive the nation at a time when it could least afford it.

Oh, this media outlet is guilty of aiding and abetting Judy and her lies, but it is also guilty in burying stories it knows would have made an important difference in the way this country is run, in the leadership, and in the government. I mean like the story before the election of bush** being such a dumbass they had to wire him during the debates. Not telling the truth, or soft pedaling, all of bush** failures and crooked deals before, during, and after his stint as governor of Texas. They knew then and they know now what sleeze balls he has surrounding him, ala KKKarl. They've sure been easy on him up to now.

And the final insult they pedal these pathetic "I don't really mean it but it looks good" mea culpas about what a shit news source they are. And people give them credit for this. Why? They don't mean it. They'll conspire and collaborate with this administration in a heartbeat if the opportunity come around again.