@@ Cracks in the JEW fortress? Judith Miller, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, & AIPAC @@
Arash
August 17, 2005
Cracks in the fortress?
New York Times executives say the paper and its staff stand firmly behind jailed
Judith Miller. But off the record, some are telling reporters a different story.
By Joe Strupp
When George Freeman, assistant general counsel for the New York Times, makes his way
to his office at the Times' Manhattan headquarters, his colleagues usually raise the
same topic of conversation: Judith Miller.
As one of the attorneys working on Miller's behalf, George Freeman says his
co-workers are never-ending in their curiosity about the case. "People ask me about
it every day, on the elevator, everywhere", Freeman told Salon. "How's Judy? How's
she doing? Not a day goes by that I am not asked by someone".
With Judy Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller_%28journalist%29) now
incarcerated for 43 days and counting, interviews with nearly a dozen Times staffers
reveal widespread concern for Miller's welfare and support for the principle for
which she is being jailed. "It is extremely upsetting to see a colleague in jail,"
says Adam Nagourney, a Washington correspondent. Adds Eric Schmitt, another D.C.
colleague, "Everyone remains quite concerned about what happened to her." "I think
most people have nothing but sympathy for Judy's situation," noted Craig Whitney, an
assistant managing editor and 40-year Times veteran. "And outrage that she has to go
to jail for a principle that we all believe in." Indeed, both inside the Times and
elsewhere in journalism, the paper is being praised for standing by its reporter as
she defends a journalistic tenet most in the industry find sacred.
But numerous staffers also have told Salon that Miller's legal saga has become a
burden, and not just for the paper's 12-person in-house legal team, which has been
swamped by her case. Troubling many staffers is the dark cloud of unanswered
questions about Miller's reporting and role in the Plame affair. Some at the Times
contend that Miller has drawn unwanted attention to the paper at a time when it is
still healing after the Jayson Blair fiasco dealt a body blow to its credibility. "It
is a big bet for the paper," one reporter who requested anonymity said of the Times'
unyielding support for Miller. "The paper chose to make this into something to fight
to the death. It may have possible negative consequences for the paper's image when
people are spending an enormous amount of time and energy on the credibility of the
paper." Although several Times staffers were willing to offer criticism of the paper,
none would do so on the record for fear of retaliation.
The grumblings inside the Times have grown louder as more questions have been raised
about the scope and nature of Miller's role in "Plamegate"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plamegate). Many of Miller's colleagues are unclear
about exactly whom or what Miller is protecting. In the face of limited information,
some speculation has surfaced that Miller is only pretending to protect a source to
divert attention from her past problems. No proof exists that the theory is true.
More prominently, a recent report that Miller met with Lewis "Scooter" Libby
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/libby/libby.php), Vice President Dick Cheney's
chief of staff, less than a week before Robert Novak outed former CIA agent Valerie
Plame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame) in a 2003 column has added to the
speculation over what role Miller may have played in the leak of Plame's identity.
The theory being peddled on the Huffington Post
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/judy-miller-do-we-want-_4791.html)
and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere has Miller not on the receiving end of
information from an administration leaker about Plame's identity, but as the one
disseminating information about Plame to administration officials.
This is just a theory, of course, with no known evidence supporting it. But it's fair
to say that many Times staffers want Miller's role in the Plame affair clarified, and
some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown,
about her involvement.
Although Miller never wrote a story about Plame, she is one of several journalists
targeted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in his investigation of who leaked
the agent's identity more than two years ago. Although Fitzgerald has subpoenaed and
interviewed several reporters, Miller is the only one who has so far refused to
disclose her sources, prompting a federal judge to sentence her to jail until she
either gives up the source or the grand jury ends its work, likely sometime in
October.
Some insiders claim the Miller case has sparked new questions from Times critics --
and employees -- about the paper's credibility given Miller's controversial past.
Other staffers say the paper has not been very forthright with employees about
exactly what Miller knows, what she had been working on when she learned of Valerie
Plame's identity, and how much editors know about her sources.
"The most common denominator is that there are a lot of unknowns about it", says one
Times reporter, who did not want to be identified. "Both what happened, what's going
to happen, and how the case will proceed. There are different levels of knowledge".
Another reporter adds, "There are a lot of unanswered questions about what the
editors really know and the public should know."
Some staffers say Miller's reputation as a hard-driving news person who "has stepped
on a lot of toes" makes it difficult for them to back her completely. Others point to
her questionable reporting in recent years related to the buildup to the Iraq war, in
which she wrongly reported the likelihood of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Such reporting prompted the Times to publish an unusual editor's note last year
admitting it had failed to adequately question such claims.
"She is obviously a very contentious person", one co-worker, who requested anonymity,
said. "There are people who have a question about the integrity of her reporting."
Another colleague called her WMD reporting "a dark chapter". "I'm not sure there is a
lot of sympathy or support", a third fellow reporter said about Miller.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Judith_Miller
Her baggage even prompted one journalism group, the American Society of Journalists
and Authors, to rethink giving her an award in early August for her efforts. After an
ASJA committee approved the award, an outcry from some ASJA members sparked a
reversal at the board level.
But reports from within the Times about growing discontent about the Miller case and
the paper's handling of it are in sharp contrast to how executive editor Bill Keller
sees the situation. Responding via e-mail to submitted questions from Salon, Keller
disputed reports that the case had drawn a lot of internal dissent. "A lot of things
that are 'reportedly' true about this case and the newsroom reaction are either flat
wrong or grossly inflated," he stated. "I think the prevailing sense in the
newsroom -- regardless of what feelings individual reporters have about Judy and her
past work -- is that they are glad the paper is standing up for her and defending the
principle of reporters' need to protect their sources."
Other editors also contend that they have not heard internal discord. "If any member
of the staff dissatisfied about our internal communication approached me, I would try
to get some answers, within the limits of our necessary protection of sources, of
course," assistant managing editor Allan Siegal said in a statement. "But no staff
member has expressed that frustration to me." Whitney offered a similar view, saying,
"I am unaware of any undercurrent of discontent."
Keller said he understood the staff concerns, but remains somewhat limited in what he
can tell them due to the investigation and the involvement of a confidential source.
"Believe me, I would like nothing better than to tell our staff whatever I know about
this case. But we have a colleague who has been in jail for more than a month, and
I'd need an awfully compelling reason to divulge information that could in any way
complicate her situation further," Keller wrote. "I've talked about this case a
lot -- in public, in interviews with various news organizations, and more privately
with members of the staff -- but I have a responsibility to be cautious."
As for the paper's image, Keller remains unconcerned, saying the journalistic
principle involved is more important. "It's of course secondary to the question of
whether we are doing something we believe in," he said about the paper's image.
"We've heard from noisy critics (mostly on the left) who are angry at Judy for
earlier coverage, or angry because they suspect her source is someone they don't
approve of. But this is not, at bottom, about any one reporter or any one source.
It's about a principle. We've heard from others (mostly on the right) who disapprove
of anything The Times does. But there's also been a significant outpouring of support
for her courage and our steadfastness".
Keller also spoke to the questions surrounding what Miller's assignment was at the
time she learned Plame's identity, but declined to spell it out. "While the questions
of what Judy knew, and what she was working on, may be matters of general curiosity,
the answers don't touch the heart of the case," he claims. "The question of what is
going on with the case -- meaning what the special prosecutor is up to, and why he
seems to regard Judy as important to the case -- is a mystery to me. It's something
I'd like to have answered -- not just for our staff, but for our readers."
The Times has been steadfast in its public support of Miller and persistent in
calling for her release. Unlike Time magazine, which handed over the notes and
e-mails of its reporter, Matthew Cooper, after he was subpoenaed in the same case,
the Times stood behind Miller's defiance of such an order. The Times editorial page
on Aug. 8 even took to linking increased harassment of the press in other countries,
like Nepal and Burundi, to Miller's incarceration. An August 15 editorial followed
with a clear demand that Miller be freed, stating, "If she is not willing to testify
after 41 days, then she is not willing to testify".
Miller remains in jail at the Alexandria, Virginia Detention Center. Reports from
visitors indicate she is holding up well, but has had some stomach problems related
to jail food, misses the Internet and outside contact, and has had to withstand a
constant stream of hip-hop videos on the communal television sets. She's had no
shortage of visitors, ranging from Keller to Tom Brokaw to Lucy Dalglish of Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press to one report of embattled United Nations
ambassador-designate John Bolton
(http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/bolton/bolton.php) getting face time with her
behind bars.
Observes New York Times columnist "Thomas Friedman"
(http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=6772), "People really support Judy and
this principle". Adds Nagourney, "I hope it works out for her".
* Joe Strupp is a senior editor at Editor & Publisher.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/cracks-fortress.html