NYT - Will the public editor
respond?
Mon Oct 24, 2005 01:50
64.140.159.119
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Will the public editor respond?
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:46:27 -0700
From: Michael Munk lastmarx2@netscape.com
To: john burns burns@nytimes.com
Several important points in FAIR's analysis of Miller's role in the NYT: (1) Clearly challenges the reason the NYT celebrated her refusal to testify and (2) focuses attention on her very recent role as a transmission belt for the neo con line of the Iraq Oil for Food program: to punish the UN for failing to endorse the US invasion.-Mike Munk
When your reason for not testifying is a belief that your source has committed a crime, then "journalistic privilege" begins to look more like obstruction of justice.
FAIR: 10/21/05:--Miller and her defenders have long claimed that that Miller was unwavering on the principle of not revealing a confidential source. But Miller's refusal to testify doesn't in the end seem as principled as either she or her paper originally claimed. As the Times reported, Miller was seeking a suitable waiver from Libby from the start, and eventually based her decision not to testify "in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client."
According to Miller, that "signaling" was the suggestion that Libby had testified about their conversations in ways that in Miller's view were false. In other words, she refused to testify because she believed her testimony would expose her source as a perjurer.
....
Miller's reporting on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was embarrassingly wrong. Even after the Times had to publicly apologize for several of her articles, Miller moved on to write several misleading or erroneous articles about the investigation into the United Nations' oil-for-food program.
More recently, a dispute erupted between Miller and then Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, who was angry that Miller was writing stories from Iraq without his oversight. The subject of the reporting was Ahmed Chalabi, who Miller claimed "provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper." Chalabi's information on Iraqi weapons was notoriously flawed.
One would think that a reporter with such a track record would be monitored carefully--presuming they were still employed. But to hear the Times tell it, Miller set her own rules. Though Keller had removed Miller from the Iraq weapons beat, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." If Keller and the Times editors do not control what their reporters are doing, then who does?
Barbara Crossette, a former U.N. bureau chief at the Times who says she unsuccessfully tried to supervise Miller's oil-for-food reporting, wrote in a letter to Poynter Online (10/17/05) that Miller "had at least one very highly placed friend at the paper, and many Timespeople were afraid to tangle with her because of that." The only person more highly placed at the paper than Keller is publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who reportedly has a friendship with Miller going back to the late '70s, when they were reporters together at the Times' Washington Bureau. As New York magazine noted in a profile of Miller (6/7/04), "Fairly or unfairly, there's a sense that Miller has protection at the absolute top--and that fear reportedly deters some editors from challenging her."
=================
CIA LEAK: JUDITH MILLER
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ASSET!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Judith_miller.htm
The Charles Goyette Show - 10/17/05 - KXXT - 1010 AM
Judith Miller a/k/a Ms. Run-A-Muck !!
2005-10-17-Charles-03.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-10-17-Charles-03.mp3
Judith Miller is Unnamed Woman in AIPAC Spy Ring Indictment
http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Judith_Miller_Naor_Gilon_Franklin_AIPAC.htm
Subject: Will the public editor respond?
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:46:27 -0700
From: Michael Munk lastmarx2@netscape.com
To: john burns burns@nytimes.com
Several important points in FAIR's analysis of Miller's role in the NYT: (1) Clearly challenges the reason the NYT celebrated her refusal to testify and (2) focuses attention on her very recent role as a transmission belt for the neo con line of the Iraq Oil for Food program: to punish the UN for failing to endorse the US invasion.-Mike Munk
When your reason for not testifying is a belief that your source has committed a crime, then "journalistic privilege" begins to look more like obstruction of justice.
FAIR: 10/21/05:--Miller and her defenders have long claimed that that Miller was unwavering on the principle of not revealing a confidential source. But Miller's refusal to testify doesn't in the end seem as principled as either she or her paper originally claimed. As the Times reported, Miller was seeking a suitable waiver from Libby from the start, and eventually based her decision not to testify "in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client."
According to Miller, that "signaling" was the suggestion that Libby had testified about their conversations in ways that in Miller's view were false. In other words, she refused to testify because she believed her testimony would expose her source as a perjurer.
....
Miller's reporting on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was embarrassingly wrong. Even after the Times had to publicly apologize for several of her articles, Miller moved on to write several misleading or erroneous articles about the investigation into the United Nations' oil-for-food program.
More recently, a dispute erupted between Miller and then Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, who was angry that Miller was writing stories from Iraq without his oversight. The subject of the reporting was Ahmed Chalabi, who Miller claimed "provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper." Chalabi's information on Iraqi weapons was notoriously flawed.
One would think that a reporter with such a track record would be monitored carefully--presuming they were still employed. But to hear the Times tell it, Miller set her own rules. Though Keller had removed Miller from the Iraq weapons beat, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." If Keller and the Times editors do not control what their reporters are doing, then who does?
Barbara Crossette, a former U.N. bureau chief at the Times who says she unsuccessfully tried to supervise Miller's oil-for-food reporting, wrote in a letter to Poynter Online (10/17/05) that Miller "had at least one very highly placed friend at the paper, and many Timespeople were afraid to tangle with her because of that." The only person more highly placed at the paper than Keller is publisher Arthur Sulzberger, who reportedly has a friendship with Miller going back to the late '70s, when they were reporters together at the Times' Washington Bureau. As New York magazine noted in a profile of Miller (6/7/04), "Fairly or unfairly, there's a sense that Miller has protection at the absolute top--and that fear reportedly deters some editors from challenging her."
=================
CIA LEAK: JUDITH MILLER
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ASSET!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Judith_miller.htm
The Charles Goyette Show - 10/17/05 - KXXT - 1010 AM
Judith Miller a/k/a Ms. Run-A-Muck !!
2005-10-17-Charles-03.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)
http://www.charlesgoyette.com/archive/media/2005-10-17-Charles-03.mp3
Judith Miller is Unnamed Woman in AIPAC Spy Ring Indictment
http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Judith_Miller_Naor_Gilon_Franklin_AIPAC.htm
