Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and the noted PressThink blogger, hands Judy Miller (of the New York Times) her head on the journalism website Romenesko today, demanding to know more about Miller's classification. The first part of his letter to Poynter Online starts here:
http://poynter.org/...
Here's the nutgraph: "If you're a Times reader, how can you trust a Judy Miller who talks about having security clearances, forcing you to guess whether a.) she really does or b.) just goes around saying she does," writes Jay Rosen. "Perhaps it's impossible for the Times to answer right now, when it's trying to separate from Miller and cope with her demands to correct the record. I would understand that. It would make sense to me. But it may be harder to get an answer after a legal separation, which usually involves not talking about the other party."
Rosen is a noted press critic and writer whose primary focus is the media's role in a democracy. A member of the faculty since 1986, he teaches courses in media criticism, cultural journalism, press ethics and the journalistic tradition, among other subjects.
As he writes there, "It's been three weeks since the New York Times released its report, "The Miller Case," along with Judy Miller's first-person recollection of her grand jury testimony. In that article she talked about a matter mentioned in other accounts of her work: that she had a security clearance from the Pentagon.
This would be highly unusual for a reporter and more than a little troubling, since a clearance means you agree to keep confidential information secret forever, and enlists you in the government's whole secrecy regime. It's a commitment to self-censorship, with criminal penalties if you fail. But we don't know if "clearance" is what she meant when she used the word "clearance," which is typical of her self-reports throughout this case. They tend to increase uncertainty and invite confusion."
Point by point, Rosen takes her story and attempted walkback apart, talking about the Franklin Foer piece and the Barton Gellman incident, when the latter joined Miller in her embed unit. It is a masterpiece and well worth the read. Kudos to Rosen for following up and writing more about this important issue.
After reading this, I believe this is the final nail in Miller's coffin. She's done with the Times. After this article -- and journalists finally understand the full implications here -- she's done with journalism. Jay Rosen gets it and destroys Miller.