Posted on 03/18/2006 6:21:22 AM PST by summer
Judith Miller has a new alibi -- the blogs done her in!
Writer Marie Brenner presents Miller's latest defense in an April Vanity Fair feature story about the fallout from the Valerie Plame investigation. ...
The ones tossing the fire were those dastardly—but unnamed—bloggers ...
In June, back in New York, "Miller realized that she was losing her authority" inside the Times. "None of my colleagues ever spoke to me about my reporting. But they would say, 'We don't want to work with her.'
In August, Bill Keller replaced Raines as executive editor, and according to Miller, he told her, "You are radioactive. … You can see it in the blogs."
"I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing," Keller tells Brenner. (This isn't the only recent "he said, she said" story in which Miller comes out the loser. See this sidebar.)
Miller describes to Vanity Fair the process by which the Pajama People destroyed her:
The bloggers were without editing, without a way for people to understand what was good, what was well reported—to distinguish between the straight and the slanderous. Things would get instantly picked up, magnified, and volumized.
(Sounds more like what my hairdresser does with my thinning locks. But never mind.)
In Miller's mind, the bloggers not only poisoned her relationship with the Times brass but also with her colleagues, who, she says, "believed what they read on the blogs."
...Exactly who were all these unnamed bloggers ripping Miller to pieces? ...
If nasty bloggers played such a crucial role in her downfall, why is Miller only now bringing them up? ...
A lame excuse? A case of recovered memory? Or something worse?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
ROTFLMAO...
Now that the Pajama People are done with her, it's the Libby Lawyers turn.
FYI.
Maybe this explains the New York Times' recent emphasis on blogs. If they destroyed Miller, maybe they can save the newspaper!
LOL...well, it's true -- the NYT is going out of its way to try and appeal to bloggers. (Meanwhile, I think their earnings are still nose-diving, BTW.)
But, most people who blog on known blog sites are not going to bother blogging on the NYT blog sites, IMO.
LMFAO!!
"In Miller's mind, the bloggers not only poisoned her relationship with the Times brass but also with her colleagues, who, she says, "believed what they read on the blogs."
which says a lot about the reporting acumen of her colleagues who apparently can't tell fact from fiction. but then we knew that, didn't we??!!!
That sidebar was pretty lame.
Is a New York Times editor really inclined to do a fact check?
Do I have to wear pajamas? I much prefer a night gown.
One thing that comes through loud and clear, not only from Judith Miller, Mary Mapes, but also Dan Rather and the rest of the old lame media, is that they FEAR the bloggers.
For decades, journalists could peddle their version of reality with no feedback other than letters to the editor, which they could choose to publish or not.
It's a whole new paradigm today, and they don't like it one bit.
Judy dear, GET A GRIP!
This awful thing to which you refer- "blogs"..is another way FREEDOM is expressed by the citizenry. And as Donald Rumsfeld would say..freedom is messy.
You, Judy, and your colleagues might consider this idea: It's your SELF-importance that gets in the way. Ponder that for awhile.
Miller and Mapes have nothing in common. Miller for years was one helluva good reporter on the Middle East. She was writing on the revolutionary Islamists (God Has 99 Names) long before her colleagues did. She is now hated by the left because they think she carried water for the Bush administration. Unfortunately for her, she was as taken in by events and may have had one too many friends in the CIA. Why she does not name names when she discusses "bloggers" is sad, because she leaves much to conjecture, just as she has done in the Plame case.
Does she have special friends in Congress?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597763/posts
Miller was hated by the left leaning MSM, or maybe that's too strong. For certain Miller's WMD reports leading up to the war, and her embedded reports from US Forces in Iraq, were scorned by the MSM. I believe the MSM resented her administration sourcing from the gitgo, and assumed she wrote pro-Bush articles as payback for her insider status>
Here's scathing proof:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22301/
".....Miller, a longtime star at The New York Times, has a formidable track record of egregious violations of journalistic standards and best practices, and a habit of sending the public off on what turn out to be wild goose chases. Relying on a small circle of highly interested parties (often anonymous "sources"), she became the leading journalistic purveyor of the fallacy that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he was tied to Al-Qaeda....."
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.