Judith Litella?
I’ll admit it: I can’t figure out Judith Miller. Is she just Emily Litella: Oh, nevermind. Dan Froomkin asks the question better than I can:
So what was Miller doing in jail? Was it all just a misunderstanding? The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly — and privately — saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller’s way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom.Note to reporters: There is nothing intrinsically noble about keeping your sources’ secrets. Your job, in fact, is to expose them. And if a very senior government official, after telling you something in confidence, then tells you that you don’t have to keep it secret anymore, the proper response is “Hooray, now I can tell the world” — not “Sorry, that’s not good enough for me, I need that in triplicate.” And if you’re going to go to jail invoking important, time-honored journalistic principles, make sure those principles really apply.
Transparency, please. Reporting, please. Honesty, please. If you dragged all journalism through the briar patch and didn’t have to, you owe an explanation.
Arianna Huffington also asks:
After she answers Patrick Fitzgerald’s questions today, Judy Miller needs to start answering some of the obvious questions raised by her head-scratching stance:What made her refuse Libby’s waiver when it was first offered but accept it now? (Especially since Judge Hogan had told Miller that “she was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the government source she ‘alleges she is protecting’ had already released her from her promise of confidentiality.â€)
Was Miller’s sudden eagerness to find a get-out-of-jail excuse prompted by Fitzgerald’s planning to ask for an extension of the grand jury?
Or was it prompted by Fitzgerald’s gearing up to charge her with criminal contempt?
If all it took for Miller to feel properly released was a phone call, why did she wait 85 days to make it?
And I’ll ask: When she reenters the newsroom, will it be to triumph, shame, or questions?
Tags: journalism, Media
September 30th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Personally, I can’t believe Matt Cooper is still on the WH beat. What do you have to do in journo-land to have a conflict of interest?
September 30th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
The only logical explanation is that the source of the leak was… Judy Miller.
September 30th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
“What’s all this talk about Women of Moose Distraction? oh. nevermind.”
September 30th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
The most interesting theory I’ve seen, is that she’s not a mere messenger, but an active participant in terms of the story politics. It’s speculative, but it does explain a lot, without going beyond reason.
September 30th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
My guess is that she was never protecting Libby, instead she was protecting a second source. That second source is Joe Wilson himself, just a theory.
September 30th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
joefrommass - then there is the Bolton connection….
September 30th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Is it true that Fitzgerald agreed to only ask questions about her conversations with Libby? If so, who else could she have spoken to? Wilson? Plume? Bolton? Rice?
September 30th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Jeff, how did Judith Miller “drag all journalism through the briar patch?”
Judith Miller is one reporter, who made a decision based on her understanding of her ethical obligations. What’s “all journalism” got to do with it?
Did Stacey Koon drag all police officers through the briar patch? Did O.J. Simpson drag all black males? Did Ken Lay drag all coporate CEO’s?
Why is Miller representative of anything other than herself — one journalist.
The identity of Mark Felt (Deep Throat) was protected for thirty-some years. Civil libertarians feel that Felt was a bad person because in 1978 Felt was indicted for illegal wiretaps (against associates of the harmless group called the Weather Underground). Nevertheless, Woodward and Bernstein are lionized for protecting the identity of their source.
The theory of protecting journalists’ sources goes like this: “Unless we can guarantee anonymity, some sources who are close to important stories will refuse to talk to us for fear of reprisal. Therefore, unless we can protect these sources, many investigative stories will not happen, and wrongdoing in high places will go unreported.”
I find this argument persuasive. When Woodward promised Felt his identity would be kept confidential, Felt had to have confidence that Woodward would keep his promise, and that there was a solid tradition of keeping such promises — jail time notwithstanding.
Yeah, I know, Miller is sympathetic to the neo-con war agenda. So what? Other journalists are sympathetic to the anti-war agenda. And the latter go to jail to protect their sources too.
Regardless Jeff, thanks bringing a voice of reason, fairness and non-hysteria to the discussion. I was supremely impressed that you bolstered your argument by citing: ARIANNA HUFFINGTON (?)
September 30th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
A reader to Powerlineblog.com has an interesting take on the reason: supposedly Miller also received leaked info from the FBI regarding an upcoming raid on a NY Muslim charity and promptly called the charity to get their reaction. (This is all prior to the raid.) She doesn’t want the DA to question her about that.
Anyway, that’s his conjecture…interesting.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
I haven’t been following this at all, but I have trouble believing that she’s 57 years old. That must have been a typo. If I had a fistful of pardons, I know who I would have given one to.
October 1st, 2005 at 2:35 am
“(against associates of the harmless group called the Weather Underground)”
Huh? You mean the group that blew themselves up making homemade bombs?
October 1st, 2005 at 10:17 am
The Buzz About Defining Blogs
When I was the ripe young age of 25, a newsroom colleague called me a curmudgeon. Not long after I met my wife, she started telling me repeatedly, “You have a tone.” That was her way of saying I was…
October 1st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Judith Miller was ordered to jail because she refused to reveal a source, now known, who had to know that if he wanted to, he could tell her she was free to release his name.
It’s been a rather prominent piece of news, meaning the same source knew it would be very noticed when finally that permission was given. The only assumption that seems reasonable to me is that something changed, but I don’t have any idea what that was.
Novak sure has gotten by with what appears to be a crime, revealing the name of an undercover agent of the U.S.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:46 am
I think Miller skated on alerting the target of an FBI raid. Double jeopardy may apply. Or, considering the flexibility of grand juries, maybe not.
One commenter elsewhere said that Miller’s problem was thus:
Fitz. Did you find out about Plame from Libby?
Mill. No.
Fitz. From whom, then?
Speculatively, this whole deal has been about that second question.
January 13th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.