Why are NY Times writers lashing out at their own Judith Miller?

[Foaming_Cleanser]

My respect for The New York Times will never crawl out of the pit the paper dug when it used “eminent domain” to turf a property owner from land it long coveted for itself. One story of many, this one from CBS News:

In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what’s going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

The world’s most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block’s other property owners didn’t want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.

“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”

But New York State’s Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper’s new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.

Executives from The New York Times wouldn’t talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.

With business ethics such as that, which in my estimation stink to high heaven, and after assigning a hatchet job on one of its own reporters by one of its own reporters — unbelievable! — and with plagiarists running amok while management spins through the revolving doors, why should I believe any story that rag runs isn’t strong-arming by Times suits trying to protect themselves while grinding their own axes? Christ! A writer with the NYT, one of the biggest, most prestigious — deserved or not — megaphones in the country, in her own paper tears another NYT reporter —hack or not — a new one while telling everyone how much she likes Miller. It’s gutter-politics propagandizing. It’s petty vengeance by a bunch of self-righteous, envious, prima-donna prigs who, if nothing else, had better watch their own backs. No one is safe in that barn yard.

Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover “the same thing I’ve always covered - threats to our country.” If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands.

It already is.

[Zoe]

ftg: She (claims to have) testified that she interviewed Libby, etc. But she has not said where who she was talking to when she wrote down the two corruptions of Valerie Plame’s name. Same notebook as her Libby notes, but no proof there either.

I agree with you that she claims that she can’t remember the source for “Valerie Flame’s” name. But it is apparent that Scooter Libby was the source for the rest of her information (whatever that was) since he is the one who relieved her of her obligation to shield her source.

[Trunk]

Can someone clue me in on something here. I’m having a disconnect.

When/how did Miller reveal the name?

It seems like Novak, not Miller, independently got the name, and printed it. When looking at the timeline at the NYT on Miller, they basically go from Miller meeting with Libby right to Miller being subpoenaed.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/2005_LEAKTIMELINE_GRAPHIC.html

A followup question would be: why wasn’t Novak ever subpoenaed?

[squeegee]

@Trunk

When/how did Miller reveal the name?

She didn’t. But she apparently knew facts material to the leak case. I assume because someone else (Libby?) told the prosecutor as much.

A followup question would be: why wasn’t Novak ever subpoenaed?

We’re not sure he wasn’t; neither Novak nor the prosecutor are talking. There have been leaks in the last couple of days that Novak had cooperated early in the investigation, and named Libby as his source.

[squeegee]

Oops, apparently we’re not sure what Novak testified, my bad. But apparently he did testify some time ago:

A critical early success for Fitzgerald was winning the cooperation of Robert D. Novak, the Chicago Sun-Times columnist who named Plame in a July 2003 story and attributed key information to “two senior administration officials.” Legal sources said Novak avoided a fight and quietly helped the special counsel’s inquiry, although neither the columnist nor his attorney have said so publicly.

[Marley23]

@squeegee

We’re not sure he wasn’t; neither Novak nor the prosecutor are talking.

Since it’s very hard to believe that he was never asked to testify, and since he never wound up in jail for contempt, I think it’s safe to assume he named his sources. But we don’t know for sure.

[Frostillicus]

Judy’s nickname is “Kneepads” by the way.

[Fearless_Reader]

@Quercus

I haven’t been closely following this either, but a couple other thoughts:

1. Being wrong as a reporter isn’t a sin, it’s just a mistake – and one that can often happen with tight deadlines and only a few hours to get a story (and often to chance to redo the story when you know a little more). But allowing yourself to be used by someone in power for their personal political gain/revenge is a big, big, big mistake as a reporter, and doing so willingly is a major, major, mortal sin.
   So other reporters are very offended by that aspect of it (and it’s such a pattern with Miller, that it seems either willing, or not-trying-very-hard-to-resist, rather than just mistakes).

I disagree. As per Maureen Dowd in her column: Investigative reporting is not stenography. IMO, this is the money quote (the rest being subtle or not so subtle cattiness).

Miller didn’t sit in jail for 80+ days to protect Libby. She was protecting her original source, and according to her attorney and every news cite, she did just that - by agreeing to a deal where she would only be asked questions related to Libby.

So who was her original source, and why is that considered irrelevant to this case?