Have you ever heard of a newspaper so unreachable as this one? Apparently Keller's cell phone privileges were jerked and everyone else at the paper now has severe laryngitis. It may be, however, since I had to read the story a few times to get it straight, that even they do not understand clearly what who did and said what to whom when and with what understandings and implications.
She says she did not consider Libby's waiver voluntary until she spoke to him and received a letter urging her to "come back to work -- and life." While Keller and Abramson argued that the Times had a responsibility to level with its readers once Miller was no longer in legal jeopardy, ...
This really confuses me. Do Keller and Abramson actually mean that as long as their reporter is in legal jeopardy because of possible misrepresentation of facts, they can stonewall their readership -- and the special prosecutor -- to protect her when she was the cause of events that placed her in jeopardy? It sure sounds to me like a conspiracy to obstruct justice!
...Bennett contended that the waiver from Libby and agreement with Fitzgerald applied only to Miller's grand jury testimony and not to telling the world about her private conversations with Cheney's top aide. If revealing everything to readers "were the trumping principle," Bennett said, "you shouldn't respect confidential sources." It is not illegal, however, for grand jury witnesses to discuss their testimony.
This is especially confusing to me. Miller's attorney says publishing the complete context of information - revealing confidential sources - is not required of a reporter, which seems reasonable enough. But the article's author then ends the paragraph with a qualification not related to journalistic ethics (*cough*) but legal concerns.
Bennett said it was "absolutely false" to suggest that his client was withholding information, noting that it was a two-year-old conversation that did not seem like "a big deal at the time."
When a NYT-wit is caught with inconvenient inconsistency of facts, it really doesn't matter, eh?
In his memo, Keller said that although he wishes he had pressed much earlier for more information about Miller's encounters with Libby, "in the end, I'm pretty sure I would have concluded that we had to fight this case in court. For one thing, we were facing an insidious new menace in these blanket waivers, ostensibly voluntary, that administration officials had been compelled to sign."
Only at the NYT would the management find waivers that permitted facts to be known, the light of day to illuminate matters, the fresh air of unimpeded press to carry truth inspiringly into the public forum as an "insidious new menace"! If the administration had compelled its employees to sign such waivers, that should not be a journalistic ethical concern (*cough*) affecting decisions about revealing the facts. And if the press revealed felonious proceedings by revealing ostensibly confidential sources, let civil rights attorneys settle all self-incrimination matters. This gets goofier all the time.
Excellent post.
The newsroom at the former "paper of record" must be depressed, confused, and paranoid at this point.
That may very well be the reason. If I recall, Miller was called back a second time. She may be the one indicted.