Have finished reading the 8-page online New York Times
report on Judy Miller and the paper's involvement in the Traitorgate scandal. Here is my second attempt at deconstructing it.
Although I accept without question that the reporters who wrote the article are professionals with high standards and integrity, I thought the report itself was in code much of the time, and that things it didn't say were as important as things it did.
To borrow a term from Watergate, it was a modified limited hang-out, not the full and frank telling of the story that Keller promised. Instead, it comes off more like one of those carefully-worded internal white paper documents companies churn out to describe a corporate screw-up, not a hardnosed investigative report on a scandal affecting national security.
But while it pulls many of its punches, and leaves gaping holes, it's not without value. As long as you're willing to pick through the scat, and read between the lines, you can glean a lot of information not previously known - and you get a real sense of the anger reporters feel not just toward Miller but the management of the Times, Sulzberger in particular. Some of the things that are in the report - and that aren't - include:
The Case Of The Missing Notebook
It's the Sherlock Holmes moment of the report - the dog that didn't bark in the night. The missing notebook is a such key element of the story, how could the reporters not address it in detail? Where was it? Who found it? How did Miller not remember it? How did management react when they learned of it? Incompetence didn't keep the reporters from including delving into the subject. Nor, I'm sure, did lack of trying. They had to have been stonewalled. Either by Miller, or management, or a combination of the two. Take your pick.
Miller Refused To Cooperate
The report states: "In two interviews, Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes."
Miller Couldn't Recall
"...when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how 'Valerie Flame' appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Libby, Miller said she 'didn't think' she heard it from him. 'I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall,' she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today."
Management: Blind Faith ... Or Just Blind?
"... Sulzberger and the paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, knew few details about Miller's conversations with her confidential source other than his name. They did not review Miller's notes. Keller said he learned about the 'Valerie Flame' notation only this month. Sulzberger was told about it by Times reporters on Thursday." But they bet the reputation of the paper on a reporter who'd proven to be unreliable anyway.
Miller Answered To Whom?
"Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Keller told Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Keller said, 'she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm.'"
Management Shielded 'A Divisive Newroom Figure'
"Although criticism of Miller's Iraq coverage mounted, Keller waited until May 26, 2004, to publish an editors' note that criticized some of the paper's coverage of the run-up to the war ... The note said the paper's articles on unconventional weapons were credulous. It did not name any reporters and said the failures were institutional. Five of the six articles called into question were written or co-written by Miller."
Miller Lied To Editors
"In the fall of 2003, after The Washington Post reported that 'two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists,' Philip Taubman, [Jill] Abramson's successor as Washington bureau chief, asked Miller and other Times reporters whether they were among the six. Miller denied it ...'The answer was generally no,' Taubman said. Miller said the subject of Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Taubman said, but Miller said 'she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information.'"
Plamegate Stories Suppressed By Management
"Throughout this year, reporters at the paper spent weeks trying to determine the identity of Miller's source. All the while, Keller knew it, but declined to tell his own reporters ... Even after reporters learned it from outside sources, The Times did not publish Libby's name, though other news organizations already had. The Times did not tell its readers that Libby was Miller's source until Sept. 30, in an article about Miller's release from jail.
"Some reporters said editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about other aspects of the case as well, like how it was being investigated by Fitzgerald. In July, Richard W Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article about the role of Cheney's senior aides, including Libby, in the leak case. The article, which did not disclose that Libby was Miller's source, was not published.
"Stevenson said he was told by his editors that the article did not break enough new ground. 'It was taken pretty clearly among us as a signal that we were cutting too close to the bone, that we were getting into an area that could complicate Judy's situation,' he said.
"In August, Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, two other Washington reporters, sent a memo to the Washington bureau chief, Taubman, listing ideas for coverage of the case. Taubman said Keller did not want them pursued because of the risk of provoking Fitzgerald or exposing Libby while Miller was in jail."
Nothing To Be Proud Of
"Asked what she regretted about The Times's handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: 'The entire thing.'"
Miller Nails Libby
This is made clear not only in the report, but in Miller's own article that also runs in Sunday's paper. Miller blows a lot of smoke Libby's way, calling him a "good-faith source" and all that. But when push came to shove, Judy shivs Libby, giving him up to Fitzgerald big time, including leveling the explosive charge that Libby's lawyer tried to influence her testimony. Wow. What sort of light does that cast on Libby's aspen note?
Miller Is Gone
"Miller said she thought she would write a book about her experiences in the leak case, although she added that she did not yet have a book deal ... She also plans on taking some time off but says she hopes to return to the newsroom." Riiight. Over the dead bodies of half the reporters who work there.
Sulzberger Ultimately Responsible For Miller
"The editorial page, which is run by Sulzberger and Gail Collins, the editorial page editor, championed Miller's cause. The Times published more than 15 editorials and called for Congress to pass a shield law that would make it harder for federal prosecutors to compel reporters to testify.
"Sulzberger said he did not personally write the editorials, but regularly urged Collins to devote space to them ...
"Asked in the interview whether he had any regrets about the editorials, given the outcome of the case, Sulzberger said no."
Conclusion
This is the second time that Miller has embarrassed the New York Times.
On both occasions, the Times felt the need to produce internal white paper reports and print them in the newspaper. On both occasions, the reports were far from definitive.
The lastest report, like the Times's mea culpa on WMD reporting, is incomplete and raises nearly as many questions as it answers.
But it does point critics toward the unexplored dark corners of the dysfunctional Miller-Times management relationship.
A subject that's sure to be debated for months, possibly years, to come.
National Debunker