Amer Journalism Review calls out the New York Times over Miller

[understandinglife]

What we really need is one of those mammoth, minute-by-minute tick-tocks making explicitly clear what happened when, and why.

The longer we're in the dark, the worse the Times looks. It begins to look like there's something to hide. And credibility accrues to those nasty theories that Miller really went to jail to salvage her reputation in the wake of the botched WMD coverage.

The Times has had its rough moments in recent years, from Wen Ho Lee to Jayson Blair to its credulous coverage in the run-up to the war in Iraq (it had plenty of company there). But it remains our preeminent newspaper, a critical player in our national debate.

Enough is enough. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller – fill us in. It's way past time.

From Candor Times: The New York Times must tell us the inside story of the Judith Miller case.

By Rem Rieder on October 11, 2005

Rem Rieder is AJR's Editor and Senior Vice President.

More at the link:

http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=3987

Sulzberger and Keller have allowed their reckless propaganda machine to deceive America into an un-Constitutional and otherwise illegal war of aggression on Iraq.

Why would they now tell the truth about Judy Miller.


Peace.

[Hissyspit]

1. Excellent. Nominated.

Why would they now tell the truth about Judy Miller?

I guess everyone is counting on good old-fashioned shame.

Might work.

[understandinglife]

2. Important to note that the author, Reim Rieder, proclaimed Miller a hero

... back in July.


Peace.

[blm]

5. Important to note that NYT has a neo-con bias of the proNetanyahu variety.

There has long been a large group of media and politicians called Bebe's Boys -

Bebe Netanyahu is like the Ayn Rand of foreign policy for Republicans.

[understandinglife]

3. "That's the thing about liars. Once they start with a particular lie, ...

... they don't make pit stops for honesty. They keep going 'til they're busted.

Also, Fitzgerald interviewed Judy in jail on Thursday, September 29. We assume she told him everything she was going to tell him the next day -- and by all accounts he is a very, very careful and thorough prosecutor. If she had mentioned any notes, my gut feeling is that Fitzgerald would've had them in his hands, pronto. Why wait a week? Why drag Miller in front of the Grand Jury without having seen what could be critical information in the notes first?

For those who want to argue that Miller just "remembered" a bunch of previously forgotten documents outside the scope of the subpoena that she (or the New York Times) simply willingly offered up -- you're going to have to work a little harder to convince my inner novelist.

<clip>

From Temple of the Dust Bunnies by Jane Hamsher on October 10-11, 2005

Much more at the link, including some very interesting comments:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_10_09_firedoglake_archive.html#112901569230625072

Ms Hamsher is a joy to read ....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

4. Jane Hamsher's "Did Judith tell the truth ..." is now on Yahoo! Vote it!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20051011/cm_huffpost/008691;_ylt=A9FJqaFoFExDvxoBvgf9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--


Peace.

[mod mom]

10. done. So do we know WHO turned over the notes to Fitz?

It appears it couldn't have been Judy because the Times stuck with the July date, but this would also mean it wasn't the Times, am I missing something?

[Garbo 2004]

12. Judy turned over her notes. That was publicly reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051007/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc (NYT's position had been that a reporter's own notes of discussions were the reporter's property, not the NYT's. Note Time Mag turned over Cooper's emails to his boss, not Cooper's own notes of conversation.)

Wonder what transpired after her testimony to the GJ to jog her memory or led her to look for/discover her notes. Besides whatever Fitz may have said or done (maybe she was looking at an obstruction charge as a result of her dealings with Libby re: her release/testimony or simply was caught in a lie) Libby's team also was in a public pissing match with Miller's lawyers, discrediting her heroic stance on the first amendment. Not cool to piss off our dear Judy, I'd think.

Note it seems that Miller's lawyers are putting out the story (as unattributed sources) that Fitz didn't appear to know about the June conversations until Judy told him/gave him the notes. Is that really the case? Maybe so, since the focus reportedly was on the July conversations (unless he found out something after her testimony), but it makes Judy the heroine again, maybe "cracking" the case for the prosecutor? Or a nice spin on maybe Fitz busted Judy on something in her testimony, had some leverage in some fashion and she needed to cooperate beyond the reported agreed upon scope to save her butt?

[mod mom]

27. Thanks, missed that one.

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Done! Maybe this should be a separate thread? ......n/t

[understandinglife]

18. Please do post it, if you have the time. Thank you.

Peace.

[annabanana]

16. done. . . . kick n/t

[lakeguy]

26. done! up to about 4.5 on yahoo. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. the long-standing arrogance of NYT and its top staff has existed for years

if not decades.

While the first few blips, (Lee, Jayson) were the source of snickers, most news media outfits were more concerned that they were in the same position, and exposed to even worse scrutiny. (several were, and some people left their reporting posts, especially in print, around the country)

nevertheless, the arrogance of NYT, its editors, and many of of its staff continued unabated. As more cracks began to appear in their self-proclaimed facade, the more the NYT pretended they did not exist.

Now, with people like Bumiller, and finally, Judith Miller, their whole facade has crashed down. Several times, in editorials, articles and releases to other media (Lou Dobbs has bought it, in particular) the NYT has attempted to paint this as a freedom of speach and freedom of the press issue, when in actuality, it pertains to felonies, cover-ups and worse, aided and abetted by the NYT and its most visible staff. As the NYT spin had less and less traction, with a few exceptions like Dobbs, they began testing the waters for other stories and explanation, but to date, the NYT is left high and dry.

Guess what else happened. The rest of the media, tired of being treated as second rate by the NYT and their employees, has seen a major flaw, a major crack in the reputation and are beginning to gloat. not just gloat, but look gleefully at the mess that NYT is slowly finding itself in.

[blm]

8. Also, NYT and LATimes worked to discredit Mercury News article on CIA

drugdealing. Documents acquired years later and CIA agents on the record proved the story was true but few reported THAT story on the front page.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

19. thank you. I had totally forgotten that.

and that makes our whole societal Drug WarP even more murky.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. A quick read:

R.I.P. Gary Webb -- Unembedded Reporter

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1213-31.htm

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. have you an alternate? this would not load.

thanks

[blm]

29. And sadly, it connects to BFEE policies the world suffers through TODAY

.

[understandinglife]

7. Murray Waas on Oct 11, 2005: Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key

... Conversation

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.

Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation.

<clip>

But the senior Justice official added that even in the absence of hard evidence of an obstruction, "a prosecutor is going to want to know why a subject of (the) investigation did not want a witness to co-operate, and why they would allow someone to linger in jail for more than eighty days, unless they had something to hide. That is going to lead many prosecutors to redouble his efforts."

Link:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1011nj1.htm#

That these folk thought they can play games with Patrick Fitzgerald and survive, will always be part of future lesson plans on the lethal nature of hubris.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

14. Bloomberg picks up the story ...

Libby Didn't Disclose Earlier Talk With Reporter, Magazine Says

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, didn't disclose to a grand jury a key conversation he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003, the National Journal reported, citing unidentified people with firsthand knowledge of his testimony.

<clip>

Libby's lawyer Joseph Tate and representatives of Cheney's office didn't respond to a request for comment.

Link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ackdHMmSVSHI&refer=us

Probably because they are all leaving town ....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

17. Jeralyn Merritt: Waas Reports Libby in Cross-Hairs Over Miller

Intrepid reporter Murray Waas breaks more news today about Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

<clip>

Murray's next revelation is that Fitzgerald is weighing whether Libby or his lawyers encouraged Judith Miller not to comply with her subpoena last year. If the grand jury believes this to be true, Libby could be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

Waas reports the genesis of this theory is the conflicting correspondence between Miller attorney Floyd Abrams and Libby lawyer Joseph Tate. He lays out the key discrepancies. The money quote is in Abrams' September 29th letter:

In our conversations...you did not say that Mr. Libby's written waiver was uncoerced. In fact, you said quite the opposite. You told me that the signed waiver was by its nature coerced and had been required as a condition for Mr. Libby's continued employment at the White House. You compared the coercion to that inherent in the effective bar imposed upon White House employees asserting the Fifth Amendment. A failure by your client to sign the written waiver, you explained, like any assertion by your client of the Fifth Amendment, would result in his dismissal. You persuasively mocked the notion that any waiver signed under such circumstances could be deemed voluntary.

More at the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeralyn-merritt/waas-reports-libby-in-cro_b_8704.html

And, yes, I too wonder -- "I wonder what Judith Miller had to say about this when she testfied before the grand jury. Did she clear Libby - or did she bury him?"


Peace.

[bunny planet]

9. The irony here is that the Bush Crime family would like nothing better

than to see the Times besmirched and possibly go out of business, so by protecting Judy, Sulzberger and Keller could be finishing off their own paper or at least it's reputation as a news organization worthy of any respect at all.

[Just Me]

20. True.

Watch out.

[understandinglife]

11. Allan Wolper: How Judith Miller Lost My Respect

How Judith Miller Lost My Respect

Allan Wolper

(October 11, 2005) -- Judith Miller of The New York Times made a principled decision to go to jail rather than tell a grand jury what she and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby discussed about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. But Miller lost her standing nearly two weeks ago after spending 85 days in jail when she changed her mind and decided that Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, truly wanted her to testify.

<clip>

It requires total brain lock to think that Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney -- and a promoter of the fiction that Iraq was filled with Weapons of Mass Destruction -- is in any way free from the influence of the White House.

Miller turned the WMD fiction into a front-page crusade for an American invasion of Iraq, making her supporters wonder whether the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist had become a stooge for The Bush Administration.

<clip>

A reporter’s notes are never supposed to be shared with anyone but his editor.

More at the link:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/ethics_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001264571

Hubris kills, everytime; sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

13. Jay Rosen: The Shimmer: Missing Data at the New York Times

The Shimmer: Missing Data at the New York Times

"Whereas a week ago, I was calling it 'Judy Miller's New York Times' to emphasize how she seemed to be the actor-in-chief, I now think it's more than that: a bigger unknown is affecting things. Not only is the Times not operating properly, it's unable to say to readers: here's why we're not."

When I talk about pictures in my mind I am talking, quite specifically, about images that shimmer around the edges. There used to be an illustration in every elementary psychology book showing a cat drawn by a patient in varying stages of schizophrenia. This cat had a shimmer around it. You could see the molecular structure breaking down at the very edges of the cat: the cat became the background and the background the cat, everything interacting, exchanging ions…. certain images shimmer for me. Look hard enough, and you can’t miss the shimmer. It’s there.
— Joan Didion

“The news comes in code, and mostly the silences speak.” Last week, that’s how I described what happens when the New York Times reports about Judith Miller and her time in jail. This is still the case, and people in journalism are noticing how weird it is. “I find the Times’ conduct at this point inexplicable,” said Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine on CNN’s Reliable Sources. (I was on the show with him; so was Glenn Reynolds. The transcript.)

<clip>

Much more at the link:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/10/10/shmr_nyt.html

fester. fester. fester. rot. rot. rot ..... and Sulzberger, Keller, & Co., just watch it happening ....


Peace.

[understandinglife]

21. Judy testifying again, tomorrow!! -- per Yahoo

Prosecutor asks NYT reporter to testify again

by Adam Entous
44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal prosecutor has summoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller to make a second appearance on Wednesday before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a New York Times official said.

<clip>

More at the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051011/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc

Peace.

[understandinglife]

22. NYTimes Covers fact that Judith will testify again on Oct 12 and that ....

.... four senior Democratic Members of Congress have sent a letter to Mr Fitzgerald urging him to file a comprehensive report to Congress.

Note the byline!

Times Reporter to Testify on Recently Found Notes

By DAVID JOHNSTON

Judith Miller, the reporter for The New York Times who spent 85 days in jail before cooperating with a federal grand jury investigating a C.I.A. leak case, will testify again on Wednesday after discussions with the prosecutor about a conversation she had in June 2003 with a senior White House official.

<clip>

In another development, four senior House Democrats wrote to Mr. Fitzgerald in a letter dated Oct. 12, urging him to issue a final report to Congress when he concludes his inquiry. Such a report, they said, should address "all indictments, convictions and any decisions not to prosecute."

The letter was signed by the top Democrats on their respective committees: John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Judiciary Committee; Jane Harman of California, Intelligence Committee; and Tom Lantos of California, International Relations Committee. The letter was also signed by Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel's policy subcommittee.

A report, the letter said, would assure the public that "the investigation of this serious matter has been undertaken with utmost diligence and has been free of partisan, political influence."

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/politics/12leak.html

And, as is no surprise, Congressman Conyers is blogging the details at 11pm EDT!!!:

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000271.htm

A true leader; a man for every season, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., the next Speaker of the House and the next (real) President of the USA.


Peace.

[H2O Man]

25. The NY Times

is preparing a two-part, long and very detailed story on Miller & the scandal. Look for it in the next 7-10 days.

[mod mom]

28. It's about time-thanks H2Oman!