Pro- and Anti-Judy Miller Fallout Grips 'New York Times' Newsroom

[Jara sang]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001307745

NEW YORK The New York Times may have hoped to turn the page with Sunday's lengthy article on reporter Judy Miller's entanglement in the CIA leak investigation, but the paper and its star reporter continue to be the focus of media attention. On Tuesday, the Times newsroom was still buzzing about what will happen next.

Inside the paper, some reporters say Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. will take the blame for leading the paper's defense of Miller. Still others point to Executive Editor Bill Keller, who admitted Sunday that he would have done things differently in the Times' handling of the case.

Officially, the Times remains mum about Miller's future -- she is currently taking some time off -- and also has not addressed the nagging question about what kind of security clearance she enjoyed as an embed in Iraq, a revelation she put forth in her first-person report on Sunday but did not fully explain.

[brentspeak]

1. Sulzberger Jr. has done a lousy job of running the Times

since he took over.

Good business sense doesn't necessarily carry from generation to generation.

[SteppingRazor]

2. They ought to fire this media whore straight away...

She gives all of us in the profession a bad name. She's a rat and a liar, and the Fourth Estate is much better off without her.

Fuck off, Judy.

[robbedvoter]

3. Judy is going to Aspen, NYT going to the dogs....

The paper was rotten to the core since the Clinton hounding days (that I know of). It had this deceiving reputation as 'liberal" so it reached people who didn't watch Fox with the RW lies doing more damage than Coulter&co.
I want it to become the laughing stock of the journalism. In perpetuity.

[Lena inRI]

7. Agreed, robbedvoter. . .

the NYT's is no longer "All the news that's fit to print". . .

. . . . . . . . . .now "All the news that fits the spin"

[Voltaire99]

21. Well said

I want it to become the laughing stock of the journalism.

Delicious thought.

[MADem]

4. I wonder this: who owns her notes?

As they are "work product" created during her tenure at NYT, do they (the NYT) own them? Or are they hers, and hers alone?

I still cannot reconcile the fact that the editorial staff backed that woman, who had a horrible reputation, temperment, and demeanor when dealing with her co-workers, without even LOOKING AT HER NOTES first.

Are they sloppy, stupid, or was she screwing someone fairly high up in the food chain? That whole bit just does not compute with me.

[rocktivity]

6. Judith developed a reputation for "screwing high up the food chain"

long before any of this happened. And I've got a stack of old Spy magazines to prove it.

:headbang:
rocknation

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. Generally if you are a salaried employee

whatever you write, notes included belongs to the company.

[MADem]

11. If that turns out to be the case, NYT is damned!

They had no excuse for not DEMANDING to see ALL her notes before they wrote editorials backing her Freedom of the Press stance!!!

I think they should have demanded a look at them in any case, regardless of who they "belong" to--the fact that they didn't makes it look like a bunch of Jayson Blair clones are running the joint.

[400Years]

5. NYT has lost all credibility

They whored for the war and they
have refused to expose the truth countless times.

They are irrelevant now.

[DrZeeLit]

15. Which is sad because Frank Rich, Krugman, Herbert and Kristoff

and on the off day, Dowd, are fine, excellent journalists.

Especially that piece by Rich on Sunday that connected all the dots.
It's sad that people will paint the entire NYT with one brush.

I feel trashed by their idiocy w/Miller.
I'll bet Rich and crew also feel betrayed.

[rocktivity]

8. Could NYT be charged as accessories to treason?

:wow:
rocknation

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. The editor and the publisher should be

they were full participants.

[rocktivity]

13. Yes, I was thinking along the lines of the editor and publisher

if they didn't know what Miller was doing, they should have.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Angry Girl]

12. That would be fair! But we can only dream of such a world here. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

16. NY Times should be labeled a PR arm of the Pentagon

They forfeited the right to be called journalists.

I hope that those NY Times reporters of conscience either resign en masse of storm Sulzberger's office and demand his head on a platter.

[goforit]

14. F*ck IT!!!....They ARE LIABLE!!!

[gratuitous]

17. Oh boo hoo hoo, fallout no less!

My goodness, will the nightmare never end? Complete this adage, Timesmen: "O what a tangled web we weave . . ."

The Times was hoping to "turn the page" with that lame excuse session from Sunday, which didn't even make all the print editions? I would have found their excuses lacking from a four-year-old; from an office of allegedly savvy newspeople, it's downright insulting to the readership.

[Jacobin]

18. The Grey Lady is No More

It blew it with its propagandizing for the war. It wasn't a 'mistake'. It was deliberate and it is clear to anyone looking

[not fooled]

19. Pray tell...

...what, exactly, constitutes the PRO-Miller position??? I am genuinely curious--does this mean that being a mouthpiece for the admin and blatantly whoring for them is defended by anyone at the NYT???

[Jacobin]

22. Why yes.

Neo con supporters like the way Judy propagandized the U.S. into invading Iraq on a pre-text.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Nothing short of a complete purgation of the war-mongers at the NYT

could save that news organization now. They are as guilty of the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture of many, and the deaths and injuries of thousands of U.S. soldiers, as the Bush Cartel is. They were critically important in creating the ILLUSION of support that the Cartel thought it needed to invade Iraq--and they did it in the teeth of American public opinion. 58% of the American people opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03. Across the board in all polls. 58%!

Yet they rammed that war down our throats, threatened and bullied and probably anthraxed Congress to get their way, cheered on by the NYT. It's amazing that 125 Senators and Congress people voted against it, with that kind of pressure.

What the NYT has done is utterly disgusting and treasonous. They are worse than Fox News and Clear Channel and all the rest. They were RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF COOKING THE INTELLIGENCE! The rightwing news dogs flagwaved and regurgitated WH and CenCom press releases. But the NYT actually aided and abetted this criminal enterprise with their own 'Mata Hari."

They have also been terrible on global corporate predation issues, on Venezuela and other matters, not the least of which was the 2004 election, the DOCTORING of the news consortium's exit polls, and the obliviousness to the massive Voting Rights Act violations in Ohio.

I don't believe a word they print any more. Not one word. Krugman is all right--he's a good writer--but he ALSO ignored the election; went off on vacation just afterward. In any case, it's not the opinion section that did the damage, that got people killed. It was the front page!

It's hard to see how they can recover. I hope the good guys win. But they are going to have to prove to me that they did.