Keller Must Fire Miller, and Apologize to Readers

[LiviaOlivia]

Editor and Publisher
After 'NY Times' Probe: Keller Must Fire Miller, and Apologize to Readers

As the devastating Times article, and her own first-person account, make clear, Miller should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism -- and her own paper. And her editor, who has not taken responsibility, should apologize to both readers and "armchair critics."

By Greg Mitchell

(October 15, 2005) -- It’s not enough that Judith Miller, we learned Saturday, is taking some time off and “hopes” to return to the New York Times newsroom. As the newspaper’s devastating account of her Plame games -- and her own first-person sidebar -- make clear, she should be promptly dismissed for crimes against journalism, and her own newspaper. And Bill Keller, executive editor, who let her get away with it, owes readers, at the minimum, an apology instead of merely hailing his paper’s long-delayed analysis and saying that readers can make of it what they will.

He should also apologize to all the “armchair critics” and “vultures” he denounced this week for spreading unfounded stories and “myths” about what Miller and the newspaper had been up to. If anything, this sad and outrageous story is worse than most expected.

Let’s put aside for the moment Miller exhibiting the same selective memory favored by her former friends and sources in the White House, in claiming that for the life of her she cannot recall how the name of “Valerie Flame” got into the reporter’s notebook she took to her interview with Libby; how she learned about the CIA operative from other sources (whom she can’t name or even recall when it happened).

Bad enough, but let’s stick to the journalism issues. Saturday's Times article, without calling for Miller’s dismissal, or Keller’s apology, made the case for both actions in this pithy, frank, and brutal assessment: "The Times incurred millions of dollars in legal fees in Ms. Miller's case. It limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day. Even as the paper asked for the public's support, it was unable to answer its questions."

~snip~

The rest at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306699

[gumby]

1. "crimes against journalism"??

If any "journalist" acknowledged that Judith Miller committed "crimes against humanity" then "journalism" might have a modicum of standing to judge crimes against itself.

[Garbo 2004]

2. Yes, the articles actually confirm what many previously speculated:

Miller had Wilson's wife name (and her maiden name mind you) before it was public knowlege. And she did indeed chat about it with others, like fellow members of the press and who knows who else, since she can't specifically recall who told her the name or apparently who she in turn shopped it around to told.

So what "unfounded stories and myths about Miller" was Keller denouncing? The ones which suggested that Miller was really chummy with the Administration and knew about Plame and told others before Novak went public? Or the ones which suggested she went to jail in part to protect her involvement in actively spreading the Plame story? That she not only had sources whispering classified info in her ear and was herself a source?

After all, she was willing to wait out the grand jury...until she realized it could be another 18 months rather than just one month. That's when she finally decided Libby's waiver was really a waiver (despite her previous interpretations of his real intent: that when he kept saying yes do testify he really meant no don't testify). And, despite his clear preference that she only talk about the July meetings, she rats him out about the June meeting. (Possibly with a little encouragement from Fitzgerald and her attorney. We only know what Judy's attorneys told us of her deal with Fitzgerald...maybe they left a few bits out, eh?)

What's much more clear now is that the Times' self-laudatory self-serving puffery should be denounced for the bullshit it is.

[Elidor]

3. A scathing indictment of Keller and Sulzberger

For enabling Judy Judy Judy. Great reading.

[Neil Lisst]

4. and then sue her for breach of her contractual duties

And for a piece of her book deal.

[donheld]

5. This sums up my feelings almost to a tee.

It doesn't seem like Miller or Keller learned one thing. Judith Miller IMHO has totally destroyed her credibility.

[farmbo]

6. By financing a year of frivolous appeals, Keller elected Bush

In 2003, Keller knew from Miller's notes that someone had disclosed VP to Miller; a clear act of treason. The Fitzgerald subpoena first went out in June 2004.

Had he cut her loose...told her she had to pay for a personal defense team...she would have testified in July or August AND THE STORY WOULD HAVE BROKE BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Keller' complicity in this treason gave Bush/Cheney 04 the ability to stick to their game plan: to run as the party that could wage a strong, effective War on Terror (unlike the Swiftboat- damaged, mamby pamby Democrats). PlameGate would have destroyed this myth and with it any chances for Bush's re-election.

As if we needed another reason to be pissed off at the NYT!

:grr:

[Angry Girl]

7. I'm still waiting for Keller to explain/apologize for THIS

The Emperor's New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

As far as I'm concerned, the NYT made sure Bush got "elected" (i.e., not laughed out of town because he cheated during the debates). Were it not for them, we probably wouldn't be in a situation with that incompetent pathological liar.

My only conclusion is that Keller and Miller work for the White House.

[spooky3]

8. excellent article--the leadership of the Times is appalling

[bunny planet]

9. Knowing how the * administration hates the Times, I wouldn't put it past

them to have the destruction of the credibility of the paper on their agenda too. Too bad Keller is going along with it, because I don't think that is necessarily what he wants to have happened.

[tblue37]

10. It's Judith Miller Times!

By placing their columnists behind a “select” firewall, the Times made itself less attractive anyway, and now this. The Times will no longer be able to claim pride of place among the nation’s newspapers. It has done so for some time only on the basis of leftover reputation from a more honorable past, but now it is well and totally screwed. From now on, let’s always refer to it thus: “It’s Judith Miller Times!”