Posted on 10/24/2005 5:47:26 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - New York Times reporter Judith Miller is defending herself against her own paper's criticism of her role in the CIA leak controversy, saying she was proud to serve time in jail to protect a confidential source, "even if he happened to work for the Bush White House."
Miller's response came in a lengthy e-mail to public editor Byron Calame, who recommended in a Sunday column that the Times review Miller's journalistic practices for conduct that raised "clear issues of trust and credibility."
Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of CIA covert officer Valerie Plame's identity.
She was released Sept. 29 and agreed to testify after a source, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, released her from her promise of confidentiality.
In her testimony, Miller said she talked with Libby, but said she could not remember who told her the name she wrote in her notebook as "Valerie Flame."
Since Miller published her account and the Times published its own story about Miller on Oct. 16, media critics and journalists have derided her, both for her stories strongly suggesting the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and for failing to explain how she learned Plame's identity.
Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an e-mail to staffers Friday that Miller appeared to have misled editors about her conversations with Libby. Columnist Maureen Dowd, meanwhile, wrote on Saturday that editors had been unable to control Miller.
Miller's e-mail to Calame was posted in his Web journal late Sunday on the Times' Web site. In it, Miller said she was "dismayed" by his essay and referred to Keller's staff e-mail as an "ugly, inaccurate memo."
Calame had noted Miller's assertion that she recommended to an editor a story be pursued on Plame, but had been told there was no interest. Miller's boss at the time, Jill Abramson, has said Miller didn't make such a request, and Calame wrote that he believed Abramson, now the paper's managing editor.
"Now I ask you: Why would I — the supposedly pushiest, most competitive reporter on the planet — not have pushed to pursue a tantalizing tip like this?" Miller wrote.
While she and Abramson have different recollections, Miller wrote that "without explanation ... you said you believed her and raised questions about my `trust and credibility.' That is your right. But I gave my recollection to the grand jury under oath."
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis didn't return a telephone call seeking comment Monday.
Miller, 57, won a Pulitzer Prize in explanatory journalism in 2002 for her work on global terrorism threats.
since they tossed her to the curb - she ought to go public and start telling the truth about this entire story.
She laid down with the knee pad people and got up with the plague.
Judy, Judy, Judy. Did you not get the memo?
I think that is exactly what she will do, Ocean. Note how the NYT has published hit piece after hit piece on her? It surely is not there for far and impartial "journalism".
when? she has to do it now, or coincident with the indictments this week (if they come) - or she will be drowned out.
It's hard to follow this story. What are they criticizing her for? Sounds like they're blaming her personally for the war in Iraq.
She should spill the beans on the whole Wilson/Plame/media/rogue CIA scheme.
Of course first she should get some big guns and big dogs.
I have to agree with you, ocean. If she doesn't do it, she will simply be whistling in the dark. Now , it will be interesting to see if he holds on to her old profession or does she defy the pressure and tell the whole truth, "journalism" be damned .
But she said there were WMD. The journalistic community awarded her a Pulitzer for saying that?
But I thought Bush lied about that. Why was a reporter given an award for saying the same thing?
the administration should be reaching out to her. I am dead serious. what else do we have to mount a counter attack if these indictments come? not much.
They are crucifying her, imho, because she failed to produce Rove/Libby's head definitively on a platter. She "can't recall" who told her about Valerie Flame. Well, they want her to say Libby. Plain and simple. Problem is, Miller must not want to lie. I believe it was someone else outside the WH that she is protecting, but she isn't telling anyone (even at the Times) who that source is! LOL So they're crucifying her because she's not taking down the adminstration.
Could it be that both Miller and the New York Times are lying?
Zep, I believe you are onto something about that perjury.
She's gotta protect herself.
Oh, something else, we do have Porter Goss, who knows what scabs he's pealed back.
Didn't Joe Wilson briefly work for the Bush Whitehouse?
she would get coverage. and certainly the conservative media would showcase her.
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.