Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Little Miss Run-Amok

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2005.


The Times' lackluster reporting on the Judy Miller saga, combined with Miller's prima donna status, have made for a house divided.
Advertisement

Of all the astonishing events in the Judith Miller/New York Times chapters of Plamegate, perhaps the most revelatory is the way Miller described herself and her activities within the paper's supposedly staid, controlled newsroom.

As noted in the paper's own long-awaited explanation of the affair, Miller called herself "Miss Run Amok."

"'I said, 'What does that mean?'" recalled former investigative editor Douglas Frantz, now managing editor at the Los Angeles Times. "And she said, 'I can do whatever I want.'"

And so she did, time and again, according to the Times' own coverage, "as the newspaper's leaders, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control."

  • Editors like Frantz' predecessor Stephen Engelberg, who damned Miller with faint praise, remarking, "Like a lot of investigative reporters, Judy benefits from having an editor who's very interested and involved with what she's doing."
  • Editors like onetime foreign editor Roger Cohen, who said, "I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage ... There was concern that she'd been convinced in an unwarranted way, a way that was not holding up, of the possible existence of W.M.D."
  • Editors like managing editor Jill Abramson, who when asked what she regretted about the Times' handling of the Miller matter, answered, "The entire thing." (Abramson also decried the fact that the paper's news coverage of the Plamegate affair had been "constrained" and coldly refuted Miller's assertion that she had "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that an article be pursued, but "was told no." Abramson, Washington bureau chief at the time, said Miller never made any such recommendation.)
  • Even editors like Times top dog Bill Keller, who "in one of his first personnel moves," told Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Keller told his own reporters, "She kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm."

So much so, apparently, that Miller -- who had been given Pentagon clearance to see secret information -- wasn't permitted to discuss some of the more sensitive items with her editors, who had no such clearance.

Miller admitted to the "Miss Run Amok" remark but told the Times she must have meant it as a joke, adding, "I have strong elbows, but I'm not a dope." That much at least seems clear. So too does the fact that her friend in high places, Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger -- who told his own paper "This car had her hand on the wheel because she was the one at risk" -- not only allowed but enabled and encouraged her unusual behavior.

Sulzberger also regularly urged editorial page editor Gail Collins to devote space to Miller's plight. Asked whether he had any regrets about the editorials, Sulzberger said no. "Judy deserved the support of the paper in this cause -- and the editorial page is the right place for such support, not the news pages," Sulzberger said. Miller added that the publisher's support was invaluable. "He galvanized the editors, the senior editorial staff," she said. "He metaphorically and literally put his arm around me."

Meanwhile, however, the Times' news reporting on the Miller case became ever more "constrained," to employ Abramson's term. Some Times reporters said their editors seemed reluctant to publish articles about certain aspects of the case. Richard W. Stevenson and other reporters in the Washington bureau wrote an article in July about the role of Vice President Cheney's senior aides, but it was not published. Stevenson said, "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."


Digg!

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Newspapers open and newspapers fold.
Posted by: Meremark on Oct 17, 2005 1:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it gives people fits, the news don't print.

Personally, I sort of never forgave the NY Times for postponing their Sept. 2001, 150-year commemorative issue, all bowing and scraping and stepping aside from smart reporting, upon confronting the Terrible Cheney Face of Terror, (meaning nine-eleven op, the n.e.o.-Khan).

(Sure the n.e.o. was scary, I was scared ... for a few days, but the Times was so witless they were complicit in it. Look, people, smart Gothamites, think: When buildings fall down they do not make dust. When buildings explode they make dust. When buildings fall down they make twisted-stuff-fell-over. There. Were. No. Terrorist. Hijackers. Nine-Eleven Op was simply the lie to start the lies to start into Iraq -- would you have let them do their warring without their PNAC pre-planned "n.e.o. Pearl Harbor" staging? Judy Miller was among the "classifieds" shaping and selling the scenario, years before 2001.)
(For the Cheney accusation evidence, see: Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire ..., by Michael C. Ruppert. BTW, Truth-doers, urgent:: While at the FromTheWIlderness link, Please Donate. Read the SOS. Read Read Read what Ruppert has built in comprehension that the FBI is onslaughting.)

I sense the NY Times has written its last Obit of Record. Its own.

How could they have ever imagined they were an exception to lying's enlarging tangling web, that's always a noose?

As near as I can find, the first Bush lie that blackmailed the paper was Prescott's, doing nazi business, in the 1930s. (See: GHWB bio, early years, Sulz. among Prescott's partners.)

Show's over, folks, there's nothing to see, go on about your business. Show here's over, move along. Papers die. Faggedaboudit. Show's over ....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» For what it's worth: They make dust Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Judith Miller is typical of the Elite sickness pervading the culture
Posted by: Newtopia on Oct 17, 2005 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw her on Lou Dobbs shortly after her release talking about her "ordeal" in jail, and I almost projectile-vomited on my telescreen. Her deep affected Eastern upper-class accent acting like she had been put in the Hole at San Quentin for a year because she couldn't use the potty by herself or read her newspaper on the day it came out... She is in cahoots with the Neocons who put us in an illegal war, and she was part of Rove & Libby's plan to pillory and punish anyone who questioned their party lines. She should be indicted as well. She is hiding behind the fact that she is a "journalist" to protect the fact that she was engaged in blatant partisan politics... Its despicable.

She's just another Elite manipulating the system for her own gain, and that of the Oligarchy running this country. I say, let her hang from the trees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Miller schilling
Posted by: wleming on Oct 17, 2005 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judith Miller was long known as the White House condiut at the Times. This is past history. Miller and the Times have been serving up White House promo for a long time, and yet we are asked to believe, by her employer, that Miller was just a bit of a loose cannon. The American corporate media bears the same relation to the truth that Judith Miller does.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Miller schilling Posted by: wleming
Ms. Little Run-Amok's John Bolton Connection
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Oct 17, 2005 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It almost ran under the radar, but it was interesting to read that Bush/Cheney Enforcer, John Bolton vistited Judith Miller in her jail cell.

Oh to be a fly on that wall. One could speculate forever on that connection, but it had to be something about her keeping her mouth shut to protect and serve Bush and Cheney, which of course, she has been doing all along. If she's just a chum of Bolton and there is nothing to it, I would still have no high regard for Miller's character and reporting skills; a study in kissing up to power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How twisted is it that...
Posted by: sgtmartin1 on Oct 17, 2005 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the newspaper that stood its ground on the Pentagon Papers is now serving as a prophylactic for an administration that took our nation to war on the basis of lies.

On a lighter note, my Muse has a theory on this case:

"Capitol Corruption Exclusive: Prosecutor to Charge Rove, Novak with Incest"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NYT, Miller and Bush Administration Spinning in the Same Toilet Bowl
Posted by: decembrist on Oct 17, 2005 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Miller supposedly went to jail for her conviction that when a reporter has to break a promise of confidentiality that reporter loses credibility and thus the public will suffer from a dearth of information. I'll tell you the two times when the public has suffered in Miller's case:
(1) When Miller's alarmist shill pieces appeared in the Times, co-written by the neocons, proclaiming the existence of WMDs in Iraq
(2) the Times circuitous, torturous and many times non-existent reporting on the whole Valerie Plame affair.

The public has suffered all right, suffered at Miller's hands throughout her career. Finally, may the NYT let her and her convictions go, and may the public be better off.

Miller took the fall to protect her sources, sources who did an unconscionable deed and may have broken the law. According to the NYT piece, Miller had permission from Libby since the beginning to testify - so why didn't she if she had permission? Because the two of them had a plan to allow them both to come out decent - Miller would refuse to testify and with the help of her paper make it look like she was a martyr for journalism, and Libby would give her permission to testify (knowing she wouldn't) and would save his own skin in the absence of her testimony.

And what about the President? The Bush Administration's talk of national security and the "war on terror" has been shown to be dangerously hollow. After all their talk, high officials went ahead and outed a CIA operative (who actually worked on WMD proliferation issues), weakening our security, demoralizing the intelligence ranks and revealing the administration's thinly-veiled double standards employed by their desire to silence political opponents at all costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Missing Scapegoat
Posted by: cellis56 on Oct 17, 2005 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Times mumbles into its own palm that Judy Miller perhaps maybe possibly should not be trusted. They spent four entire pages of typescript pillorying that poor excuse for a journalist, Jason Blair. No mumbling there. We got a blow by blow on his perfidy, from his wrong-headed descriptions of the field beyond Jessica Lynch's natal abode to his phoning in human interest stories instead of flying to Omaha for the interview. Omigawd! How we had been deceived!

But has there ever been a true mea culpa regarding the venomous wrongs of Judith Miller, a woman whose lies helped persuade a nation to back a fiend in pursuing oil fields for Halliburton? Nah.

It isn't as simple as he's black and she's white or he's non-connected and she hobnobs with our lame contemporary excuses for "greatness." But those are some of the realities behind the Times' sickening descent from a paper so long trusted by gullible liberals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Missing Scapegoat Posted by: Doubtom
Worse than Jayson Blair
Posted by: Michael Turnauer, Vancouver,WA on Oct 17, 2005 8:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Times hits an all new low, no small feat in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, in its coddling of Judy Miller. She was nothing but an embed who prostituted herself for the privelege of access to the Administration. The infighting is the last remaining shred of credibility to be found at The Times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]