DOBBS: "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller

SOURCE: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/04/ldt.01.html

DOBBS: "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, spent 85 days in jail, courageously protecting her confidential source in the White House CIA leak case. She was also fighting for the right to provide narrow testimony before a federal grand jury investigating that leak. And now, less than a week after her release from jail and her appearance in federal court, Judith Miller joins us. Good to have you here.

JUDITH MILLER, NEW YORK TIMES: It's great to be here, Lou.

DOBBS: It's -- first, the idea of 85 days in jail is something that most of us cannot comprehend. It is -- give us your -- the sense of what you had to endure?

MILLER: Well, it was the most soulless place I've ever been. I think we don't realize how much we take things for granted like color, silence, the right to take two aspirin when you feel you have a headache. It was demeaning. It was degrading. It was very lonely.

But it has to be put in perspective. It's not a deadly illness. I knew I was going to get through it one day -- I didn't know how long it was going to last -- and I learned a lot from it. So all experiences of life teach you something.

DOBBS: One hopes that we all learn something from the experience and the example you set. There were people, Judy, who -- writing into this broadcast, saying Judy Miller thinks she's above the law. Why should any journalist be above the law? Our response on the air was, straightforwardly, if she thought she were above the law, she would not be accepting the punishment for following her principles. How do you respond?

MILLER: Well, precisely the way you did. And if I had wanted to evade the law, if I thought that I was better than the law, the law didn't apply to us, I wouldn't have sat there for 85 days to make a political point about principle, and the principle that we journalists have to safeguard the confidentiality of our sources. And it was a rather extreme way to make it, but I felt I had to, and I also have to tell you, by the way, that your clock, your "Judith Miller has been in jail for X number of days," gave me a lot of encouragement at the end of some very long and depressing and challenging days. And I want to thank you for it, and CNN for standing up for journalist principle and the right of confidentiality.

DOBBS: Well, obviously, we are -- we're committed to, in this organization, Jim Walton, the chairman of the newsroom, Jon Klein, the president of the network, we couldn't ask for more support.

I look at "The New York Times," your publisher, your editor, your management. They stood with you without even the slightest hesitation.

MILLER: Right.

DOBBS: You must be extraordinarily proud and thankful.

MILLER: I am. To have a publisher like Arthur Sulzburger, who said, Judy, this is your decision. I'm not going to push you one way or another. But what you decide is right. We will back you on. Because it was a difficult decision.

DOBBS: Absolutely.

MILLER: A journalist can't ask for more than that. And Bill Keller, who was out there, answering questions, day after day, questions that I couldn't answer, given where I was. Jill Abramson, John Geddes, who sent me a joke a day. When I saw him again, I said, John, I didn't know that there were 85 good jokes. I don't know 85 good jokes. Every person at "The New York Times" just about sent me a letter, a post card, an e-mail to let me know that they were thinking about me, and it made such a difference.

DOBBS: This investigation, with Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, moving before Judge Hogan to put you in jail, Matt Cooper, "Time" magazine and Time, Inc. relented and said we're going to testify and turn over the notes, principally e-mail. How did that make you feel when you were sitting there on the -- in your situation?

MILLER: I guess each news organization had to make its own decision. I was just very proud that I was working at "The New York Times," and we had been consistent about the issue of not turning over notes for, you know, ordinarily to grand jury investigations. We had never done it, and we didn't do it in this case.

DOBBS: There are those liberals who've commented here, obviously in public, and I'm sure to you, saying, you know, she is protecting a conservative White House and really is not protecting sources, or upholding the public's right to know by doing so. She's really providing benefits to the conservative -- this from the liberals -- the conservative enemy. How does that make you feel? How do you respond?

MILLER: Well, they wrote lots of postcards, saying I should testify, and why wasn't I testifying? Why was I covering for these people? You know, Lou, I knew and I know they wasn't covering for anybody. I was protecting the confidentiality of the source to whom I had given my word. I was keeping my word. And until I knew that that source genuinely wanted me to testify, and I heard that from him, I was willing to sit in jail. I didn't want to be in jail, but I knew that the principle of confidentiality was so important that I had to, because if people can't trust us to come to us to tell us the things that government and powerful corporations don't want us to know, we're dead in the water. The public won't know.

DOBBS: The public is certainly...

MILLER: The public won't know. That's why I was sitting in jail. For the public's right to know.

DOBBS: And all of us in this craft respect you immensely and are deeply grateful to you for so doing. It's an immense sacrifice.

The idea that you would not accept a blanket waiver from Scooter Libby.

MILLER: Right, I would not.

DOBBS: The fact that you were able to constrain, your attorneys and you were able to constrain your testimony before the grand jury narrowly. Was that worth it?

MILLER: It was definitely worth it. I had to have both of those elements before I could, in good conscience, testify.

You know, I didn't want to participate in a fishing expedition. And we had asked the special counsel over a year ago, would he narrow his investigation to the source of his interest and the subject of interest? And he wouldn't do it then. When he agreed to do it, when I asked in August, that was it. I knew I'd be able to -- sorry, in September, I knew I'd be able to get out of jail. Time is a little mushy for me right now.

DOBBS: I can imagine each of those days seeming all together...

MILLER: An eternity.

DOBBS: (INAUDIBLE) into the next.

But having been given the opportunity, Libby providing the personal, direct waiver of conversation.

MILLER: Yes, he did.

DOBBS: What took so long between that and your exit from prison?

MILLER: Oh, there was almost no time between the time that I got both of those elements and the time I left jail. The difficulty was getting both of them, and getting both of them in a way that the special prosecutor, the special counsel was not able to pressure my source. I didn't want Mr. Fitzgerald to pressure my source to give me the waiver, because then it wouldn't be a voluntary waiver.

DOBBS: It appears now that Fitzgerald was actually pressuring Libby and his attorney to declare themselves at the end.

MILLER: I think he was actually telling them. He told all lawyers, and by the way, you're going to have to ask the lawyers, because I never heard any of this directly. But I believe he was telling my lawyers that if we reached out to Mr. Libby to see how he felt now, he wouldn't construe that as collusion or obstruction of justice. And we were very worried about that, because, you know, would this reaching out be misinterpreted?

DOBBS: This investigation by Fitzgerald has now taken longer than Watergate. I won't ask you to construct or construe the value of your testimony in this case. But the fact that it has taken so long, with the principals all known, with the case sitting before, this -- and the cost of millions and millions of dollars, and frankly I will not forgive Fitzgerald for what he did to you. I think it is an onerous, disgusting abuse of government power, and that of Judge Hogan, straightforwardly.

But I am also dismayed that this investigation has taken this long without result. And the only person who's paid a penalty to this point is you.

MILLER: Well, let's wait and see what Mr. Fitzgerald has. If he brings indictments, if he has a very serious case, then I might have to say that perhaps his zealousness with respect to this mission was justified. I don't know what Mr. Fitzgerald has. I'm waiting to see like everybody else what he produces. But if he doesn't have anything, I will wonder about why I had to spend 85 days in jail, and why I may be the only one to spend time in jail.

But we don't know yet, Lou. It's interesting to me, nobody has been able to crack the case yet. Nobody knows what he's working on.

DOBBS: What you describe as zealousness, if it turns out to be, I would prefer on the part of a prosecutor, effectiveness every time, in particular in a case of this nature. I prefer that, as the Bush White House refers to them, I prefer evil doers be punished. And hopefully that we'll see the free press in this country certainly supported and enhanced by your sacrifice. We, again, respect you very much.

MILLER: Thank you very much. And I hope we have a federal shield law that would protect all of us, so that no other journalist has to make the choice that I did.

DOBBS: And again, not for the benefit of the journalists, but the benefit of the public.

MILLER: No, it's not about us, it's about the public's right to know.

DOBBS: Judy Miller. Thanks for being here.

MILLER: Thank you very much.

DOBBS: All the best to you.

MILLER: Thank you for your support during this very long...

DOBBS: Our pleasure, believe me.

MILLER: ... difficult situation.

DOBBS: Thank you.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/04/ldt.01.html

========================
Were Judith Miller and Robert Novack expendable MIC assets? ... drug called Judith
Miller continues to resonate. From an excellent ...
http://www.apfn.org/LEAK-GATE/MIC.htm

"Miller's modus operandi is described by several Times sources as the
following: She cultivates senior officials using the importance of
the Times. The officials give her a story, she reports it
uncritically (she may note opposing views, which she overrides with
friendly sources without reporting out the discordant objections),
and it appears prominently in the newspaper of record. Miller's
happy, her editors are happy, her sources are happy.

Thus, she continues to prosper, the sources keep calling her back,
she keeps getting published, and the editors like her because
she 'delivers.' This system was summed up for me by a Timesman as: 'a
neat little eco-system of corrupt journalism.'

This systemic problem at the Times was also described to me
as 'journalistic materialism.' Miller has delivered 'exclusives,'
even if in a prosecutorial, hyperventilated voice. And now no one
wants to admit that those exclusives were in the main part wrong.

Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
core of the regular functioning news machine."

Of course, this really isn't about Miller, who is just a very
aggressive hack 'journalist'/propagandist who has pushed her way into
being in the right place at the right time. Miller is still writing
about the weapons of mass destruction, now about the failure to find
them (with a subtle hint that it is the incompetence of Kay's group
that has led to his failure to find anything), and still failing to
acknowledge the enormous role she personally had in making this an
issue (and consider the irony in Aaron Brown interviewing her on the
subject and asking her the question: 'Do you think that the
administration was snookered by people who had an agenda?'). The real
issue is the absolute failure of the editors at the New York Times to
follow even the most rudimentary standards of journalistic ethics or
practice. Miller is very careful to flag everything she writes with
clear warnings of what she is up to, thus putting the blame for
publishing her disinformation squarely on the shoulders of her
editors. Single sources for what appear to be outrageous statements,
sources consistently with a partisan interest in the attack on Iraq,
sources close to Cheney and the Pentagon, sources who appear to be
dubious on their face, extremely convoluted explanations for why it
was impossible to follow normal journalistic procedures - all these
things stand out like sore thumbs in everything that Miller writes.
The problem with Miller strikes at the very heart of the ease with
which journalism can be corrupted. Miller is personally close to
sources of power, the powerful deal out exclusive rights to otherwise
hidden stories, stories whose publication seems to increase the
importance of the paper, and this process creates a form of addiction
for more stories. If any editor questions any particular story,
Miller can threaten to cut off the source of the stories, thus
injuring the career of the editor, who will be seen as killing the
goose who lays the golden eggs. This particular scenario could happen
to any media outlet, and is increasingly the model for all
journalism. The powerful use stooges like Miller to threaten vendors
of information with losing access to the best information, and thus
the media increasingly looks like the public relations office for the
powerful. It costs money to generate saleable information, and thus
it is easy for profit-making journalism companies to rely on what
appears to be both free and highly prestigious information, caring
very little for whether any of it is actually true. It takes a
disaster like the attack an Iraq, justified largely on the kind of
nonsense published by the Times, to make this problem visible. The
saddest thing is that this corruption of journalism was entirely
intentional. The advent of wildly right-wing news sources created a
new outlet for the disinformation of the powerful. If the old
traditional news businesses don't play along with the new realities,
the rights to access are denied them, and only the most partisan news
outlets will have access to the stories. Competing with the access
requires money that the media businesses don't want to spend, and it
is much easier and cheaper to simply retype the pablum that is free
for the taking, if you are prepared to make a few compromises. Fox
News recently did an interview with George Bush that looked exactly
like what you might expect an interview of the 'Great Leader' by the
North Korean press to look like. This is the new standard of
journalism. If you don't act obsequious enough, and don't play along
by the new rules, you will simply be shut out of the game.
posted 2:41 AM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LEAK-GATE/message/19
==========
LEAK - GATE:
This White House Scandal Finally Tips the Scale!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/leakgate.htm