Judy, Judy, Judy, Pt. II
Okrent gets this one right, I think, biting the hand that feeds him.
No, of course not, Bill. Because Judy's such a brave defender of press freedom she is above all criticism. That's silly.
Okrent blames it all on Chris Matthews and writes that reporters shouldn't go on these shows because they'll say something they'll regret and downgrade both their own and their paper's credibility.
Mostly, yeah. But in Miller's case, she really doesn't have much credibility left, particularly when talking about Ahmad Chalabi and His Forty Thieves. Matthews wasn't badgering, blustering, or flattering her into making the claims she made. On the contrary, he gave her plenty of opportunity to back off of them. She is intent on rehabbing Chalabi. I don't know if it is at the bequest of Pentagon neocons in order to maintain her sources there, or what, but it is as evident as the nose on her face.
And for Keller to ignore this -- to the point of not even being "drawn into a discussion -- is stupid and self-defeating for the newspaper for which he works.
But there is also an interesting little subtext going on here. "Miller was away from New York this week, and did not respond to messages I left on her office phone, her cellphone, and on e-mail." Gosh, Dan, I don't think our Judy likes you too much. And to think, she's such a romantic at heart.
Judging by their absence from the paper, one must conclude that either Miller's Chalabi revelations were wrong or unsubstantiated or that The Times is suppressing an important piece of news. If the first, the paper has suffered a blow to its credibility: Matthews introduced Miller as "an investigative reporter for The New York Times." The ID on the screen said "Judith Miller, 'The New York Times'." At five separate points in the show Matthews invoked her connection to The Times, as any host would.
If there's an act of suppression going on, the price is of course incalculable. But I don't remotely think that is the case. I've been able to determine with a very high degree of confidence that editors in the two departments most likely to have an interest in Miller's Chalabi assertions were unaware of them. (Miller was away from New York this week, and did not respond to messages I left on her office phone, her cellphone, and on e-mail. Executive editor Bill Keller declined to discuss the matter. "I'm sorry to be unhelpful on this one, but Judy faces a serious danger of being sent to jail for protecting a confidential source," Keller told me in an e-mail message. "I think this is not the time to be drawn into unrelated public discussions of Judy.")
No, of course not, Bill. Because Judy's such a brave defender of press freedom she is above all criticism. That's silly.
Okrent blames it all on Chris Matthews and writes that reporters shouldn't go on these shows because they'll say something they'll regret and downgrade both their own and their paper's credibility.
Mostly, yeah. But in Miller's case, she really doesn't have much credibility left, particularly when talking about Ahmad Chalabi and His Forty Thieves. Matthews wasn't badgering, blustering, or flattering her into making the claims she made. On the contrary, he gave her plenty of opportunity to back off of them. She is intent on rehabbing Chalabi. I don't know if it is at the bequest of Pentagon neocons in order to maintain her sources there, or what, but it is as evident as the nose on her face.
And for Keller to ignore this -- to the point of not even being "drawn into a discussion -- is stupid and self-defeating for the newspaper for which he works.
But there is also an interesting little subtext going on here. "Miller was away from New York this week, and did not respond to messages I left on her office phone, her cellphone, and on e-mail." Gosh, Dan, I don't think our Judy likes you too much. And to think, she's such a romantic at heart.
posted by John at 4:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home