When Journalists Join the Cover-ups

[hang a left]

When Journalists Join the Cover-ups

By Robert Parry
October 18, 2005

As embarrassing as the Judith Miller case is for the New York Times, the fiasco underscores a more troubling development that strikes near the heart of American democracy – the press corps’ gradual retreat from the principle of skepticism on national security issues to career-boosting “patriotism.”

Miller – and many other prominent Washington journalists over the past quarter century – largely built their careers by positioning themselves as defenders of supposed American interests. Instead of tough reporting about national security operations, these reporters often became conduits for government spin and propaganda.

In that sense, Miller’s prominence at the Times – where she had wide latitude to report and publish whatever she wanted – was a marker for how the “patriotic” journalists had overwhelmed the competing “skeptical” journalists, who saw their duty as bringing a critical eye to all government information, including national security claims.

For her part – both in the credulous reporting about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and protection of a White House source who sought to discredit a whistleblower about a key WMD lie – Miller has come to personify the notion that American journalists should tailor their reporting to what is “good for the country” as defined by government officials.
snip>

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/101705.html

[spindrifter]

1. Even beyond the tailoring is

the blurring of professional boundaries. Somehow some of these reporters have gotten the idea that it's okay to be activists rather than researching and reporting the story. It's as though they want to make the story the memorable sound bite. The reporter deludes herself into thinking that she knows what the story that will sell or win accolades needs to be and she tinkers with the backdrop to make it so.
We've all seen the effects of the investigative reporting in our hometowns. It can change the status quo. But the line gets blurred when the ends justify the means.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. NYT needs to fire this woman asap

She's a disaster for the NYT, and is sinking its reputation with every new bit of information about her that is revealed.

[Angry Girl]

3. What about her enabling boss? It's not like he wasn't in on it! n/t

[Atman]

5. Forget firing Miller...the NYT has to fold

They simply have no credibility as a news source. They should be a free weekly rag, for their awesome arts and entertaiment sections, all that fun stuff. But news? Why bother. The right thinks they're "liberal," the liberals think they're simply full of shit.

[personman]

4. The job of the media is protecting the people from the government...

NOT the other way around...

It REALLY pisses me off when people compare Judith Miller to Deep-Throat during the Watergate scandal, as if politically motivated revenge were some righteous cause...

-personman

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. You're right. Whistle blowers are heroes. Miller's just a liar for Bush

And yes, the NYT may as well fold. It's become useless, publishing lies at every turn.