Commentary by SUSAN E. GALLAGHER
Times 'expose' of Miller reveals
little
Amid all this murkiness one fact is plain:
The Times' present crisis stems from a persistent failure to
uphold its own journalistic standards.
In
case you have been bewildered by the Judith Miller affair,
here's a quick guide:
On July 6, the New York Times' reporter went to jail,
allegedly for protecting a source who had illegally leaked the
identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
On Sept. 29, she was released, after agreeing to give
"limited testimony" before a grand jury.
On Oct. 17, the Times published "A Notebook, A Cause, A Jail
Cell, and A Deal," which, along with Miller's own account, was
supposed to explain why she had so long attempted to conceal her
conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick
Cheney's chief of staff.
If you're still confused, it's not your fault: The Times
has yet to unravel the mysteries surrounding this
cloak-and-dagger case.
A Notebook: Miller testified that she has no idea
why references to Plame appeared in notebooks she used while
talking to Libby about Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson,
who happens to be married to Plame. Miller will say only that
Libby did not reveal Plame's identity.
A Cause: Since Miller still won't clarify her role, we
still don't know if her aim was to advance the White House's
push toward war, improve the Times' reputation, or
restore her own public image after widespread criticism of her
massive misreporting on weapons of mass destruction. [She had
written articles implying the Saddam Hussein had them. He
didn't.]
A Jail Cell: Since Miller got Libby off the hook -- at
least until his indictment Friday -- by testifying that he had
not outed Wilson's wife, we still don't know why she spent 85
days in jail, why she got out, or what other sources she used to
learn more about Plame.
A Deal: Since even her editors apparently can't
persuade her to come clean, we don't know if the deal Miller
made was with the White House, the Times, or herself.
Amid all this murkiness one fact is plain: The Times'
present crisis stems from a persistent failure to uphold its own
journalistic standards. For example, after Miller's
prize-winning but truth-losing reports on WMDs became too
glaringly flawed to defend, her editors admitted that many of
her articles were riddled with unfounded claims. In their
apologetic note to readers, however, they did not identify
Miller by name. Readers can determine whether this granting of
anonymity conformed to the paper's current "Guidelines on
Integrity," which state: "There can be no prescribed formula for
(anonymous) attribution, but it should be literally truthful,
and not coy."
The Times' decision to beatify Miller despite her
misreporting on WMDs also obscured the impropriety inherent in
her simultaneous hawking of "Germs," her best-selling book on
bio-terrorism. Again, readers can judge whether ignoring
Miller's self-serving exaggerations about unconventional weapons
contradicted the Times' admonition to itself to be
"vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or
apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper's
ethical standing."
In an overdue gesture of transparency, Times public editor
Byron Calame acknowledged that Miller's troubling history might
impede her transition back into the newsroom. However, Calame
is, he admitted two weeks ago, still unable "to nail down...
whether Ms. Miller holds a government security clearance." But
while Miller now insists that she had the same security status
as other embedded reporters, which would oblige her to share
sensitive information only with high-level editors, here's what
she told the grand jury about a breakfast meeting with Libby at
the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C.: "At our July 8 meeting
I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not
permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive
information about Iraq."
Miller seems to be implying that Libby could've relieved her
vexation by allowing her to let her editors in on especially
secret secrets. This suggests that her status was markedly
different from that of other "embeds," not merely because it's
hard to figure how a journalist who was dining with a high-level
White House official in Washington could be simultaneously
embedded in Iraq, but also because it gives us a pretty good
hint that Libby was managing Miller's reporting. Otherwise, why
would she expect him to free her to talk?
Perhaps Calame or someone else at the Times will "nail down"
whether Miller is herself a government agent or whether her
"security clearance" was her own invention. But if we can only
speculate about what Calame might discover or Miller might have
hidden, which is all we can do at this point, then we are left
with one certainty: The Times has failed to live up to its
pledge to "do nothing that might erode readers' faith and
confidence in our news columns." In choosing to leave us
guessing, the Times may have prolonged Miller's swan song as a
heroic reporter, but it gave up its claim to our trust.
SUSAN E. GALLAGHER is an associate
professor of political science at the University of
Massachusetts at Lowell. She wrote this for the News
Tribune.
|