New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | October 17, 2005

Matt Welch explores whether Judith Miller is a martyr to journalistic principle—or just the principle of CYA.

Comments

|10.17.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Another possible reason for the weird change in stance that I have seen suggested (I beleive by Josh Marshall), is that her lawyer changed from Floyd Abrams (first amendment lawyer) to Bill Bennett( criminal lawyer and brother of self righteous vituecrat-turned-creepy-obsessive-slot-machine gambler).
Agreed that she should be shunned, and considered as a peer of Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair.

Ken Layne|10.17.05 @ 2:11PM|#

Does anyone outside of some graduate journalism class give a fuck if that scum-sucking war whore is a "martyr to journalistic principle" or whatever?

She is a war criminal, nothing less, and it would be nice to never see her name in a headline again unless it was followed with "executed by hanging."

R C Dean|10.17.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Ken, I'm having a hard time pinning down your position on ms. Miller. . . .

nancy|10.17.05 @ 2:18PM|#

And what is this about Miller claiming "not to remember" the source, in addition to Libby, who mentioned Plame? The person's quote is in her notes, but she can't remember who it was?! I am a journalist, and sometimes I can't read my own scrawl, but I always know who the hell I am quoting. That this is optional and acceptable for a NY Times reporter is... just get the woman out of the building!

Matt Welch|10.17.05 @ 2:23PM|#

nancy -- It's also funny (and by "funny" I mean "not funny") how she complained in her piece about not being able to tape record her Fitzgerald testimony ... when she obviously didn't tape record a single minute of her three interviews with Libby.

And Arianna Huffington made a good point the other day (yes, I just wrote that) -- the Plame-outing flap was a national scandal within a week or three of these interviews. You'd think she would have knuckled down extra hard to decipher the notes & remember the nuances. Instead, she told her editors when asked that no, Libby didn't try to out Plame during their conversations. Incredible.

Morat|10.17.05 @ 3:33PM|#

I find Miller's security clearance claim a little more interesting. That opens up an entirely different issue.

I can understand why the military insisted -- and embeds accepted -- censorship of reporting from units during the war. But what reason, exactly, does a journalist have to jump through hoops to gain access to information she can never print or reference in any way?

|10.17.05 @ 4:28PM|#

The more these events play out, the more convinced I am that it's truly one of those situations where everyone involved is a scumbag, but only some of them will get a comeuppance. Wilson is a lying hack, Miller ditto, Plame wants to pretend she was still "under cover" years after her job was public knowledge, and I don't have much to add to the conversation on Rove/Libby.

I will be amused, though, if the prosecutor ends up tossing out the whole shebang as untriable.

|10.17.05 @ 4:32PM|#

I find it odd that Ms Miller can be wrong about so many things, but somehow we are supposed to believe her story that Libby revealed Plame's name to her. Isn't it equally likely that she lied about that, too? Maybe that's the reason she didn't want to testify. She doesn't want to reveal the real source, and The Times is happy to let Libby (and/or Rove) take the heat.