'She Deserves the Opprobrium of Everyone in Journalism'


J$P Instant Transcript! Eric Burns and the News Watch panel ponder the case of Judith Miller.



From Fox News Watch, July 23 2005:

ERIC BURNS [FOX NEWS]: The American Society of Journalists and Authors has recommended giving its annual Conscience in the Media Award to Judith Miller of the New York Times. But Ms Miller is in the clink, for refusing to reveal her source in the Valerie Plame case. And at least one member of that society is protesting that award, and listen to this woman's reasoning. She says this:
The first amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who [were her apparent sources], has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistle blowers.

In other words, the objection here, Jane, seems to be that she has, Judith Miller has, completely turned the meaning of protecting sources on its back, and therefore should not get any kind of award.

JANE HALL [THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY]: As I've thought about this case, I'm tending to agree with the objection to her, separate from her lousy reporting and wrongful reporting on the war in Iraq, which is a pretty big "except". I have begun to wonder. First of all, the New York Times and her going to jail has probably started open season, at least precedent, for other people to go after the media. Watergate was about a whistle blower who came forward on a criminal investigation that went all the way to the resignation of a president. I think there are distinctions to be made. The New York Times is taking the stance, we did it right, trust us. I disagree with that.

BURNS: And if the distinction were, Jim, that she had gotten this information--and perhaps she did, we don't know absolutely yet--but if she had gotten information not from a government source but from a private individual, then we wouldn't have this issue?

JIM PINKERTON [NEWSDAY]: Well, I mean I guess we--look, I find it crazy to say that because the source for the reporter is the government, that therefore you can blow the whistle on him. I mean, Mark Felt, who was most of Deep Throat--

HALL: The source was somebody who outed a CIA agent.

PINKERTON: --OK, the point is, if you play that game of this source is protected, that source is not protected, obviously nobody will be sure they're going to be protected. One thing about Judith Miller you can put in the bank: if you give her a story, she's going to protect it. Which is a lot more than you can say about a lot of reporters now, who would rather squeal than go to jail.

HALL: But what if the source frees you? Then, what point are you making there?

PINKERTON: But we don't know the source freed her. We don't know that.

HALL: We don't know that, but it's been reported that's the case.

CAL THOMAS [SYNDICATED COLUMNIST]: The New York Times has got itself with its knickers in a twist, to use the United Kingdom phrase on this. It is editorially now supporting Judith Miller, but some of its rationale has gone on to cheer leading here. I think they're caught in a conflict of interest. Yes, they want to praise the reporter and the supposed principles for which she stands, and that's arguable as well. But at the same time, at least in the latest editorial about her, they pulled an awful lot of punches in this. I will say, however, that I think Judith Miller has secured her career at the New York Times. There's no way she'll be fired now. She's gone to jail. If Jayson Blair had gone to jail first, he'd still be working there.

NEAL GABLER [MEDIA WRITER]: She does not deserve an award. She deserves the opprobrium of virtually everyone in the journalism business. Although, I hope she's cleared a place, if she does win this award, on the little toilet in the cell.

BURNS: In the cell, for the award, yes. Listen, we have seen the first of the effects, I think, of these decisions that have to do with Cooper and Miller, which is that the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a very fine newspaper in the Midwest, its editor has said that he has decided not to run two stories with, and these are his words, "profound importance for the Cleveland Plain Dealer audience", because they were based on leaked documents. Now one of those stories, Neal, has since gotten out in some other publication. But what about the notion now that newspapers might be thinking, we have to have whole different standards of reporting because of Miller and Cooper?

GABLER: I think that the editor of the Plain Dealer was grandstanding here, trying to prove that this is the effect of Miller and Cooper. Look, we live in an environment now--

BURNS: So that he could, in other words, try to say to people, here is the danger so you've got to protect people like Miller and Cooper?

GABLER: Exactly. Exactly. The real danger is that the administration, and the courts, and the public are all hostile to the press. That's emboldened the courts to act in a different way.

PINKERTON: I'll bet you that half the investigative stories that ever get published in a newspaper in a year come from anonymous sources, often in the government. And if they aren't protected, if they get busted, and every prosecutor, every mayor, every attorney general, district attorney would love to shut down the free press and dissent. And if that happens, we'll be like in the Soviet Union.

BURNS: So should we worry less here because maybe this, as Neal suggests, this editor is grandstanding, and in fact newspapers, Jane, are still going to go ahead and publish stories of "profound importance" from leaked sources?

HALL: I agree with Jim, and I think that newspapers, that ownership of newspapers also is increasingly further and further away. Entertainment companies own a lot of news today. I don't think a lot of owners of publications are eager to do stories that are going to get them in trouble, and get their reporters jailed. I mean, both of these things are disincentives.

THOMAS: Going back to something Neal said about the people don't trust the press, and something you said, Eric, a moment ago about gee, does this mean the media will have to change reporting standards? Well, yes! That's the whole point. If the media--

BURNS: Change them how?

THOMAS: Well, make them better. There's an awful lot of stuff that gets into the press unsourced, unsubstantiated sometimes, where government people are using the media to advance a particular point of view or to smear somebody else. They're never held accountable for it. This is one of the many reasons why people don't trust the media.

BURNS: We have to take another break...

posted: Sun - July 24, 2005 at 01:21 AM       j$p  send 
Ira
I regularly view "Fox News Watch" and although Jane Hall is a liberal, I usually respect her opinions as a former reporter and now a college teacher.  
 
But her criticism of Judith Miller's coverage of the leadup to the War in Iraq, specifically the existence of WMDs, indicates that Jane has joined the Michael Moore/George Soros Kool-aid crowd.
 
I pity her American University students.
July 24, 2005, 10:07:53 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Z-Man
It would be much more sensible if she realized who signs her paychecks & shut up! Hasn't she been briefed on the company line or what? BTW, is the 'kool-aid' thing a FNC talking points thing or is it just something intuitively right-wing??? I know O'Reilly loves it, so it must be something especially 'pithy'...
July 25, 2005, 8:34:40 AM EDT – Like – Reply

SLLamp
You're kidding, right Z-Man? The "kool aid drinker" phrase has been around ever since Jim Jones and his followers drank the poison back in 1978. No cable news organization currently in existence invented it, nor it is intuitively right-wing, as many of the 'hounds devotees use the phrase to describe a dissenting commenter.
July 25, 2005, 9:31:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike
Another shining example of the liberals' superior intellect.
 
Welcome to the world, guys.
July 25, 2005, 11:50:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Z-Man
Now who's kidding? Fox News & 'kool aid' - what could be more utterly ironic in its contradiction? I know, I know; 'We Report, You Decide' unlike the MSM of which Fox is not a part (snigger). But I'm sure even the hyperintellect Mike realizes that they're just marketing slogans like those other FNC classics: 'Real Journalism', 'Fair & Balanced' & 'The No Spin Zone'. Hahahaha! Enjoy the Kool Aid, guys...
July 26, 2005, 3:09:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike
Get a grip on reality. The kool-aid reference is to what Jim Jones would say to his followers - to practice drinking poison so they would do it when he really wanted them to. Z-man: do you know who Jim Jones was? are what his religious following was?  
 
PS what is a "snigger"?
July 26, 2005, 3:24:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Z-Man
Dear Mike, You seem to miss my point for one with such a magnificent brainium in the cranium. Fox which specialises in, shall we say, brainwashing (telling people how to think) uses a sarcastic reference (i.e. kool aid) which is ultimately a metonymy for that which they espouse. Get it? Ironic, n'est ce pas? BTW, How does one practice drinking poison? Wouldn't the practice sessions be somewhat terminal?!?! Let me see - Jim Jones, Jim Jones. The kid with the black t-shirt in the Simpsons? No, that's Jimbo Jones. How about the religious cult leader who founded Jonestown in the jungle of Guyana (migrated there from San Francisco) with his followers who shot & killed several members of a Congressional delegation investigating the group & then subsequently on the orders of Jones took poison laced kool-aid killing just under a thousand including about 275 children? In Foxspeak, would their deaths have been a suicide poisoning or a homicide poisoning? Oh well, ultimately not much difference, in the words of the (thank God) inimitable John Gibson, maybe even '5 in the noggin is just fine'...  
PS Snigger = half suppressed laugh.
July 26, 2005, 5:54:47 AM EDT – Like – Reply

SLLamp
So Michael Moore is an agent of FOX News when he uses this phrase on his own Web site, in this item titled My First Wild Week with "Fahrenheit 9/11"... By Michael Moore?
 
They took the Kool-Aid offered by the White House and rarely, if ever, did our media ask the hard questions that needed to be asked before the war started.
(http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-07-04)
 
And the Newshounds faithful are agents of FOX News when they accuse dissenting commenters of drinking Kool-Aid?
 
How about it's just an expression that many many people on all sides of the political spectrum have been using for years and years. If you don't like FOX, don't watch. It's quite amazing the lengths you haters will go to in your pathetic effort to smear that which you hate.
July 26, 2005, 9:12:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Ira
"Fox which specialises in"
 
Z-Man: Given the spelling of the third word above, you gave yourself away as a non-American, somebody who likely has never watched Fox News Channel but merely apes the postings on the Newshounds and other leftist websites.  
 
Back to my original post above that began this "kool-aid" discussion. There are a number of far-left pundits that have criticized Judith Miller because her coverage of the run-up to the war in Iraq was not as anti-Bush as what would be expcted from a New York Times reporter. So they reason that by sitting in jail, Miller is now getting what she deserves.
 
And that cockamaime analysis can only be from a proverbial "kool-aid drinker!"
July 26, 2005, 11:26:27 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Z-Man
Well, Ira, my cover did slip. I do live in Australia where the 'z' in words like specialize is replaced by an 's'. However, I do (sparingly) watch FNC when I want to angry up the blood a bit. With regard to the 'kool aid' thing let's just say that it's over used by both sides, but I still say that Billy O seems to have a patent on it (he's used it 11 time since the beginning of June, I checked on Factiva).  
SLLamp: That's rich coming from a FNC devotee calling someone a 'hater'. The common denominator in 99% of Fox's coverage is 'hate'. They hate the French, the Canadians, the Arubans, Europeans (in general), Jesse Jackson, Michael Jackson, Democrats, Hillary/Bill Clinton, Muslims & much much more. How would you know what Newshounds prints? Since you obviously don't like them, by your logic, you wouldn't be reading them & would therefore not have any clue what terms they use or don't use...
July 26, 2005, 8:22:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

SLLamp
Z-Man, I do read the Newshounds, because to me, in order to be able to speak intelligently about why you disagree with someone or something you have to actually KNOW about it. And not just "sparingly." I am very aware of the terms they and their commenters use. I am not calling for their destruction, but I do disagree with their tactics. They can't speak against FOX without using lies or distortions. They don't want FOX to be fair and balanced, they want FOX to be destroyed, and to me, that is the definition of a hater. I don't hate any of the people or groups you mentioned. But a lot of the 'hounds commenters don't even GET FOX where they live (case in point Canadian Paul, who has commented SEVERAL times that he doesn't get FOX but he reads the Web site, so he naturally has the requisite expertise to expound on what he hasn't seen) yet they know enough to say how awful the network is. And for what they allegedly consider an "insignificant" blog, their commenters spend an AWFUL lot of time talking about Johnny Dollar.
July 26, 2005, 8:53:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike
Unlike SLLamp, I AM calling for their destruction. Althought they have degenerated to a discussion group of only a very few paranoid and troubled posters, they are read world-wide (since for some unexplained reason, they appear often on Google "News" searches) and I am afraid many in the world believe that they represent an intelligent group that has a possibility of changing things in our country.
July 27, 2005, 7:12:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply