Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miller Responds (To NYT's Public Editor. Miller didn't try to pursue story until 7/8/03 mtg)
National Review Online ^ | 10/24/05 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 10/24/2005 7:05:20 AM PDT by frankjr

Judy Miller fights back against her own newspaper's effort to defenestrate her. This is her letter to the Public Editor in response to his finger-wagging at her. It's not behind Timeselect, but it does require registration. Here's the opener, it goes on for a while after that:

"I’m dismayed by your essay today. You accuse me of taking journalistic “shortcuts” without presenting evidence of what you mean and rely on unsubstantiated innuendo about my reporting.

While you posted Bill Keller’s sanitized, post-lawyered version of the ugly, inaccurate memo to the staff he circulated Friday, which accused me of “misleading” an editor and being “entangled” with I. Lewis Libby, you declined to post the answers I sent you to six questions that we touched on during our interview Thursday. Had you done so, readers could have made their own assessment of my conduct in what you headlined as “the Miller mess.”

You chose to believe Jill Abramson when she asserted that I had never asked her to pursue the tip I had gotten about Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger and his wife’s employment at the C.I.A. 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? Soon after my breakfast meeting with Libby in July, I did so. I remember asking the editor to let me explore whether what my source had said was true, or whether it was a potential smear of a whistleblower. I don’t recall naming the source of the tip. But I specifically remember saying that because Joe Wilson’s op-ed column had appeared in our paper, we had a particular obligation to pursue this. I never identified the editor to the grand jury or publicly, since it involved internal New York Times decision-making. But since you did, yes, the editor was Jill Abramson."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; dumbreddown; jillabramson; judithmiller; miller; plamegate; redonred
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: Steve_Seattle
that a bungling and corrupt CIA is trying to overthrow the President.

As time goes on, it's more and more obvious that you are exactly right. It's more and more farcical and frightening at the same time the MSM continues to focus on Rove and Libby instead of screaming about the virtually naked intervention in the political process by the national security apparatus.

21 posted on 10/24/2005 8:00:54 AM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Consider the purpose of the editor's original memo. Morale at the Times is low because Miller did not rat out the entire Bush Administration. In talking to Libby, Miller did nothing that Times reporters, and the entire journalistic profession, don't do all the time. They all have their anonymous sources. If they want to slant a story a certain way, they know which "source" to pick. They rely on their friends and cohorts - that is to say, their sources - for the material to write their stories with.

This is very instructive. The Times considered attacking the Clinton Administration as a crime against journalism. And they consider failing to attack the Bush Administration as a crime against journalism. That's called bias. Journalism has nothing to do with it.


22 posted on 10/24/2005 8:21:59 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Thank you so much.


23 posted on 10/24/2005 8:36:41 AM PDT by pnut22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
Thanks for posting the link to the Sun article, Fenris6

It mentions Chalabi's current importance in Iraq

24 posted on 10/24/2005 8:38:36 AM PDT by syriacus (Bush hasn't done a bad job, all things (WOT, vagaries of Nature, Lib lies + obstruction) considered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

An observation: Where were all these horrible tales about Judith Miller before she testified to the Grand Jury? Can you say sour grapes?


25 posted on 10/24/2005 8:40:28 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

Thanks for the link to the editorial...it's really well done.

I continue to wonder...what is it that has put the New York Times in attack mode. I understand that they think they had it wrong on the WMD, largely because of Miller, but is the proper response to personally attack their own journalist? It just seems like something more is going on here...in so many words Miller has been declared a hostile witness.


26 posted on 10/24/2005 8:54:42 AM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
That is a heck of a great observation you made! It does make me wonder what in the heck they have all been up to, and why the "shark-feeding" frenzy all of the sudden? Is the NYT falling from grace (and not doing a good job of it?) or did they get their hands caught in the cookie jar and don't know how to extract themselves from this self-inflicted catastrophe? I'm beginning to think Carl Rove set the bastards up, and if he did, he's a lot smarter than even I thought, and good for him!! What a wonderful "evil genius" he is.
27 posted on 10/24/2005 9:01:44 AM PDT by geezerwheezer (get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

"I understand that they think they had it wrong on the WMD, largely because of Miller, but is the proper response to personally attack their own journalist? It just seems like something more is going on here...in so many words Miller has been declared a hostile witness."



And what's so disingenuous about this is that Miller was just one of several reporters who supported the WMD theory within the pages of the Times. Heck, it was just days after Bush's first Inauguration that Eric Schmitt and Steven Meyers were writing stories for the NY Times...."warning" the Bush administration that Saddam and his WMDs were still a threat to this country.

The NY Times was more than happy to give former Sec. of Defense Cohen, the same space and latitude for one of his stories that essentially claimed Saddam had rebuilt his factories and was reconstituting his WMD program. Again, this story appeared just days after Bush's Inauguration, in what almost appeared to be an attempt to influence the Bush administration to do something about Saddam.

These people are continuing to perpetuate the lie that it was only Bush and those in his administration that believed that WMDs existed, when in fact, they, along with other intelligence organizations around the world...including the UN, also believed the same. Yet, too appeal to their only remaining base (the left-wing nuts), the Times is taking a position of self-righeous indignation, acting as if they never believed the WMD story was true.

If they really believed this, than they would also be going after the Washington Compost and any number of other media outlets that also helped propagate this message throughout the Clinton years. This same media that now wants to discredit this war, had no problem defending Clinton's four attacks on Iraq...based on much of the same intel. I think that what Times' objects to most, is that Miller didn't take this oppurtunity to bury the administration.


28 posted on 10/24/2005 9:27:44 AM PDT by cwb (Liberalism is the opiate of the *asses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

I hope everyone remembers what a fair and unbiased reporter Jill Abramson was.

Lest we forget, she wrote the book "Strange Justice" about Clarence Thomas. It was meant to neutralize "The Real Anita Hill" and justify the "electronic lynching" of Thomas.

No agenda there. Uh-huh.


29 posted on 10/24/2005 9:39:18 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnut22

Well, you know what I mean. =)


30 posted on 10/24/2005 9:46:25 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Defenestration, definitely!

We'll witness autophagy in this little episode a little later on!

CA....


31 posted on 10/24/2005 9:50:32 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
her own newspaper's effort to defenestrate her

I think I'll defenestrate myself right over to the dictionary.
32 posted on 10/24/2005 9:54:15 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

" I think I'll defenestrate myself right over to the dictionary."

I hope you live on the first floor. (I just looked it up as well)


33 posted on 10/24/2005 9:58:17 AM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

LOL, I can't believe there's a word for that!


34 posted on 10/24/2005 10:03:31 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

de·fen·es·trate Audio pronunciation of "defenestrate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-fn-strt)
tr.v. de·fen·es·trat·ed, de·fen·es·trat·ing, de·fen·es·trates

To throw out of a window.


35 posted on 10/24/2005 10:08:16 AM PDT by ptrey ((I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: frankjr; All

You might not believe this, but about three years ago, there was a whole FR thread dedicated to the word, "DEFENSTRATE." Everything old is new again!


36 posted on 10/24/2005 10:23:09 AM PDT by Hildy ( liberals cannot change the present, and cannot effect the future, so they MUST relive the past...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ptrey

In my personal framework of logic, defenestrate would mean "to render windowless," like unto defoliate. To throw out from (through) a window would be to "exfenestrate," a word not recognized by my Webster's, more's the pity.


37 posted on 10/24/2005 10:24:08 AM PDT by Elsiejay (Forever wondering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: andyk
It all depends on gravitas.
38 posted on 10/24/2005 10:32:20 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Has it occurred to anyone that there might be something personal between Scooter Libby and Judy Miller? Cause it sure occurred to me. Would certaily justify her going to jail for him, and explain his weird coded letter to her.


39 posted on 10/24/2005 10:34:56 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (2,4,6,8 - a burka makes me look overweight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

In this battle of credibility I'll take Miller over Jill "Strange Justice" Abramson.

As Miller points out, she swore to her version under oath.

It's sickening to watch the NYT try to adopt some kind of virtuous stance on reporters and their holy sources while embracing a documented liar (Wilson and his gang) as they try to throw a Bush administration official passing on honest information to the best of his ability under the train.

It won't work.


40 posted on 10/24/2005 10:45:42 AM PDT by victoria wilson (double naught spy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson