Posted on 10/23/2005 3:18:31 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - The New York Times' ombudsman said the newspaper should review reporter Judith Miller's journalism practices to address "clear issues of trust and credibility" in her role in the CIA leak investigation. Miller's attorney called the newspaper's recent criticism of her "shameless."
Times Public Editor Byron Calame also said the paper should consider updating its ethics guidelines on using anonymous sources and quoted publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. as saying "there are new limits" on what Miller can do in the future.
Calame wrote in a Sunday column that the Times and Miller's Oct. 16 accounts of the reporting that landed Miller in jail for refusing to testify to a grand jury "suggested that the journalistic practices of Ms. Miller and Times editors were more flawed than I feared."
Miller went to jail for 85 days rather than testify to a grand jury investigating the leaking of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity. She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after her source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from a promise of confidentiality.
Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote to Times' staff last week that Miller may have misled the paper by saying she was not one of the recipients of a leak about Plame's identity. Miller said that criticism was inaccurate.
"The Times needs to review Ms. Miller's journalistic practices as soon as possible, especially because she disputes some accounts of her conduct that have come to light since the leak investigation began," Calame wrote.
Calame noted Miller's assertion that she recommended to an editor that a story be pursued on Valerie Plame but was told there was no interest. Miller's boss at the time, Jill Abramson, said Miller didn't make such a request, and Calame wrote that he believed Abramson, now the paper's managing editor.
Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, said on Sunday that the newspaper is trying to deflect criticism of its own coverage of the leak investigation by targeting the 57-year-old Miller.
"Judy did nothing that the New York Times did not want her to do," Bennett said. "They encouraged her to stay in jail."
"It's shameless. They should be praising her for doing what they wanted, for going to jail for 85 days to uphold an important principle, which she did," he said. "They are not treating her very well and I think it's very disgraceful."
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis didn't immediately return a message seeking comment Sunday.
Can someone explain to me why the NYT is distancing itself from Miller?
So do many inside the Beltway.
Some say it's strategic positioning or trying to be ready to play it both ways depending what happens indictment-wise.
Others say they are dumping the rats that have fouled the works.
Others say they are trying to keep their core base of clueless readers in their spell.
Take your pick.. or add yours on :-)
Because the Dems told them to run. You're next!
That's what I'm wondering. I'm also remembering that the NYT's was in on the rathergate story if I remember right. Only dan rather jumped the gun and ran with the forged document story first.
Could it be that the NYT's was in on this dirty deal as well?
Not only did Miller have a special relationship, she had something approaching a security clearence. This might be key if Libby thought she was authorized to hear stuff. This seems to be the focus of the MYT anger.
I did not know that.......
Everybody except the NYT seems to be aware that the NYT has these issues in spades.
Why does Miller want to work for a bunch of pompous, self-righteous yo-yos?
"The Libs think Miller had some special relationship with Libby ..."
"So do many inside the Beltway."
And people inside the Beltway are never wrong.
A couple questions about the media:
When Bob Woodward elicited and published "leaks" from Deep Throat, the press praised him because?...Hurts a Republican president.
When the Pentagon Papers were leaked...did the media go after reporter Daniel Schorr(I think that was him)..no, he was praised because again it hurt a Republican president
When Ken Starr PROVED that Clinton had perjured himself (as evidenced now by his loss of law license, etc) what did the media do? They attacked the prosecutor so they WOULDN"t hurt a DEmocratic president
When Fitzgerald apparently is going after indictments for Rove/Libby for leaking or perjury, do the newspapers go after the prosecutor? NO! THey turn on their own reporter! WHy?..It will hurt a Republican president.
When a former National Security Advisor STEALS classified documents, do the press call for a special prosecutor to find out WHAT was destroyed? No...it would hurt the legacy of a Democrat
Newspaper people LIVE on leaks...the problem is, they wanted the LEAK to HURT a Republican president. If it proves the president was correct (i.e. Wilson was NOT sent by Cheney but instead by his wife, etc) they are not interested.
And people wonder why the NYTimes has lost 50% of its readership???
I'm not sure we needed weaklings like Valerie Plame in the CIA
Her hubby, Joe, said Valerie never would have arranged for him to take a trip to Africa because she "needed" him at home to help with the twins.
Poor widdle Valerie. Poor widdle wifey.
You ask, "Could it be that the NYT's was in on this dirty deal as well?" YES!!! they published Joe Wilson's lies during a presidential election. The comparison to Rathergate is most apt.
They may realize that their MSM conspiracy/cabal has collapsed.
I fear Judith Miller may die soon of "suicide by Arkancide."
yes .this is their big moment. if this should turn out to be good for the WH they will never live it down. they have to the person ,drank the koolaid. now nadler and dean demanding charges (because they will except nothing less) and impeachment hearings if charges are handed down. no matter how this comes out , massive blowback is called for here. no excuses ! enough already !
BALD FACED LIE. Libby released Miller from any confidentiality months ago. It was MILLER and her attorney's who recently made a big deal out of supposedly getting it again and "clarifying" the release that had already been granted by Libby.
Because Miller is a pompous, self-righteous yo-yo too?
Just a guess..
ping
Apparently the first release wasn't good enough for her. It makes no sense, I know. She wanted to go to jail for some reason.
Valerie was a clandestine CIA agent
Do we know this?
"Someone tell me why she is wearing glasses in that photo? Part of her "secret identity" costume...like the Lone Ranger. "
They are/were legends in their own minds it seems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.