Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
The Judith Miller saga moved one step closer to some sort of resolution yesterday when federal district judge Thomas Hogan lifted a contempt order against the New York Times reporter after she testified one final time in the CIA leak case.
Executive editor Bill Keller stated in his paper that “it should clear the way for the Times to do what we’ve been yearning to do: tell the story.” But in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reported that anguish within the Times over the paper’s handling of the situation “has mounted in recent days, much to the consternation of its top executives.” Keller told Kurtz: “I share it. It’s excruciating to have a story and not be able to tell it, and annoying to be nibbled at by the blogs and to watch preposterous speculation congeal into conventional wisdom.”
Rather predictably, the initial wave of blogger reaction to all that was a flurry of further nibbling. Miller is back at work, posted Suburban Guerrilla, “And democracy can rest easy again. Except that I don’t remember lifting my contempt for Judy Miller.” Responding to lawyer Robert Bennett’s statement that “Judy is moving on to be the great, principled reporter that she is,” Boggles, Bungles, and Greed tossed this cheap shot: “Translation: to tell more lies for the administration.” (Emphasis his.)
3 Old Men produced a more thoughtful analysis:
I’ve been pretty hard on Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who just spent 85 days in jail, caught up in guessing what happened during that couple of weeks in 2003 now known as Plamegate. It’s been like an inkblot on the Rorschach test — since there’s no real information, who knows? [Answer: Judith Miller]
[W]e’re listening! I hope she can be brought out of the fog of self justification and perceived martyrdom to just stick to the facts.
We’ve said it before: It will be best for all involved if the Times tells the full story of Judith Miller — the sooner, the better. (Side benefit: getting bloggers off your back.) But that might not be as easy to do as some assume. The Wall Street Journal ominously reported today that, while the lifting of the contempt order “opens the door for Ms. Miller to disclose details of her story and her testimony to the Times,” so far there’s no indication that she will describe the nature of her grand jury testimony to her colleagues. When asked by the Journal, “Miller declined to say whether she would be giving an interview to the Times.”
Scott McClellan probably wishes people would just leave him alone, too, after another sparring match with a feisty White House press corps at yesterday afternoon’s press briefing. As It Affects You (a “Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community”) wrote last night:
Today’s press [briefing] lasted 32 minutes. For Scotty, it must have felt much longer. You see, in that 32 minutes, reporters repeated essentially the same question twenty three times. For those wishing to calculate such things, that’s once every 83 seconds.
Reporters wanted to know why the administration is peddling Miers’ religious beliefs [to dubious conservatives], and when he refused to answer, they asked again. And then they asked again. And then again. They kept this up practically from start to finish, 23 times, once every 83 seconds. …
… What’s really interesting is reporters actually followed up. Rather than just letting it go, or, worse, dutifully reprinting the administration’s talking points, they hounded him 23 times. [Emphasis his.]
It’s a juicy story for the press, sure to spur on days of chattering and follow-ups. As the Washington Post noted today, the president’s statement yesterday that it was okay to use Harriet Miers’ religion in making the case for her confirmation has triggered “a debate over what role, if any, her evangelical faith should play in the confirmation battle.”
In a probing, meaty post (a true sight for sore eyes), The Rhetorica Network offered this insight: “To keep her bid alive, the Bush administration must now talk about something that should have very little to do with one’s fitness to serve on the Supreme Court: (specific) faith.” And they will be forced to keep talking about it, if the continued scuffling between McClellan and journalists over Miers’ religion in this afternoon’s briefing is any indication.
We wondered what “Harriet Miers” had to say about all this, so we went to her (fake) blog. But she, too, dodged the question, wishing everyone a “HAPPY YOM KIPPUR!!!”: “One thing I love about our President is his commitment to Every Race and Every Religion, it’s an inspiration for us all to honor that.” Even the most combative bloggers wouldn’t dare to criticize that.
–Edward B. Colby
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
