Journalists Blast New York Times' Coverage of Plamegate

Posted on October 17, 2005

The L.A. Times discusses how The New York Times is handling the controversial behavior of journalist Judith Miller, who went to jail for two months to "protect her source" about the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, then changed her mind and testified before the federal grand jury. Many journalists have been severely critical of Miller's behavior in connection with Plamegate.

The New York Times finally broke its silence about its most infamous journalist, but the piece has only led to further criticism in journalistic circles.

The New York Times' long campaign in defense of reporter Judith Miller provoked substantial dissension within the newspaper and left it flat-footed as it tried to cover unfolding allegations that top aides in the Bush administration might have illegally exposed the identity of a CIA operative, the newspaper reported in today's editions.
The self-analysis by the Times makes it clear that - although Miller has previously been celebrated by the Times top management for going to jail to avoid naming a source - her reporting and decision not to cooperate with a federal grand jury were viewed skeptically by many of her colleagues.
When asked what she regretted about the newspaper's handling of the Miller matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: "The entire thing."

Meanwhile, Raw Story reports that Miller "will take an indefinite leave of absence effective immediately" and that she'll be writing a book. Surprise, surprise.