NYTimes editor screws up

Big time. Keller should have resigned over the whole Miller/WMD fiasco, and now this, too. How could he not have “thoroughly debriefed” his own reporter when she was subpoenaed?

Times Editor Expresses Regrets Over Handling of Leak Case By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, told the newspaper’s staff yesterday that he had several regrets over his handling of Judith Miller, the Times reporter who spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case.

In a memorandum sent to the staff while he was traveling overseas, Mr. Keller said he wished he had “sat her down for a thorough debriefing” after Ms. Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the investigation into the leaking of the name of a C.I.A. operative.

In his first direct criticism of Ms. Miller, Mr. Keller said she “seems to have misled” the newspaper’s Washington bureau chief, Philip Taubman, when she was asked by Mr. Taubman if she was one of at least six Washington journalists who had reportedly been told that Valerie Plame was a C.I.A. operative.

And, he wrote, had he known of her “entanglement” with I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, he might have been more willing to explore compromises with the prosecutor investigating the case.

Mr. Keller also said he had missed “what should have been significant alarm bells” about Ms. Miller’s involvement in the C.I.A. leak case. One, he wrote, was that he did not know “Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign.” Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who criticized the Iraq war, is married to Ms. Plame.

Ms. Miller said in an interview that Mr. Keller’s statements were “seriously inaccurate.” She also provided The Times with a copy of a memorandum she had sent to Mr. Keller in response.

“I certainly never meant to mislead Phil, nor did I mislead him,” she wrote to Mr. Keller, referring to Mr. Taubman.

She wrote that as she had said in an account in The Times last Sunday, she had discussed Mr. Wilson and his wife with government officials, but “I was unaware that there was a deliberate, concerted disinformation campaign to discredit Wilson and that if there had been, I did not think I was a target of it.”

She added, “As for your reference to my ‘entanglement’ with Mr. Libby, I had no personal, social, or other relationship with him except as a source.”

Ms. Miller, 57, is taking time off from the newspaper after serving time in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of Ms. Plame’s name. Ms. Miller was released from jail after agreeing to testify and turn over her notes to the special prosecutor.

The prosecutor’s investigation, which has focused on White House officials, could come to a conclusion next week, possibly with criminal charges.

In his memorandum, Mr. Keller said he regretted waiting a year before confronting problems with Ms. Miller’s reporting on unconventional weapons in Iraq. He said he had delayed confronting those problems, because the newspaper had just been through the traumatic Jayson Blair episode, in which a Times reporter was found to have fabricated articles. That led to the departure of Howell Raines, the executive editor, and Gerald Boyd, the managing editor.

“It felt somehow unsavory to begin a tenure by attacking our predecessors,” Mr. Keller wrote. But by waiting more than a year, he acknowledged, "we allowed the anger inside and outside the paper to fester.

“Worse, we fear, we fostered an impression that The Times put a higher premium on protecting its reporters than on coming clean with its readers,” he wrote.

I have to admit that I don’t have the slightest idea what Keller is talking about.

Ken, can you please explain for starters the whining about “entanglements” with Libby? Are there reporter/confidential source relationships that do qualify only as relationships but not entanglements? So, for example, with regard to the never ending series of leaks from the CIA to the NY Times reporters, do those relationships qualify as entanglements? How does a source know when he has a relationship with a reporter that assures him of confidentiality rather than an entanglement which would potentially qualify for a breach of that confidentiality pledge?

When Clinton was president, did Times reporters have entanglements with Administration officials?

If you can clear any of this up, I would be appreciative.

She wrote that as she had said in an account in The Times last Sunday, she had discussed Mr. Wilson and his wife with government officials, but “I was unaware that there was a deliberate, concerted disinformation campaign to discredit Wilson and that if there had been, I did not think I was a target of it.”

This is what is wrong with many reporters: They are unable to discern when they are being manipulated. A serious, serious flaw that makes most reporting of legal and political matters suspect.

She wrote that as she had said in an account in The Times last Sunday, she had discussed Mr. Wilson and his wife with government officials, but “I was unaware that there was a deliberate, concerted disinformation campaign to discredit Wilson and that if there had been, I did not think I was a target of it.”

This is what is wrong with many reporters: They are unable to discern when they are being manipulated. A serious, serious flaw that makes most reporting of legal and political matters suspect.

No kidding. I would think that the first thing a reporter should ask him/herself is “why is this person giving me this information?”.

I note that the official New York Times standard is to indicate, when quoting an anonymous source, the potential bias of said source (e.g., “…said a Senator, who has voted against the proposal”).

I would think that the first thing a reporter should ask him/herself is “why is this person giving me this information?”.

Agreed. I have a hard time believing that the thought didn’t occur to her. (In other words, I think she’s lying. If not, she’s stupid.)

** note that the official New York Times standard is to indicate, when quoting an anonymous source, the potential bias of said source (e.g., “…said a Senator, who has voted against the proposal”).**

Isn’t that one of the complaints against Plame? Due to her entanglements with her source, she identified him as a “former Congressional aide,” rather than a White House official, in order to mislead people about his identity?

note that the official New York Times standard is to indicate, when quoting an anonymous source, the potential bias of said source (e.g., “…said a Senator, who has voted against the proposal”).

Isn’t that one of the complaints against Plame? Due to her entanglements with her source, she identified him as a “former Congressional aide,” rather than a White House official, in order to mislead people about his identity?

I assume you mean Miller (the NYTimes reporter), and not Plame (the CIA operative).

I’m reading Miller’s response to the column by the Public Editor of the NYTimes (yes, they have one, and it is his job to represent the readership of the newspaper. He is free to roundly criticize the paper, and he routinely does. I’m betting that “Fox News” doesn’t have such a position); the column appears in the Sunday editorial page. She’s calling her editor, Jill Abramson, a liar, when Abramson says that Miller never approached her about doing a piece on Wilson/Plame!

Her defense of what you cite:

My second journalistic sin in your eyes was agreeing to Libby’s request to be considered a “former Hill staffer” in his discussion about Wilson. As you acknowledged, I agreed to that attribution only to hear the information. As I also stressed, Scooter Libby has never been identified in any of my stories as anything other than a “senior Administration official.”

What a mess.

I assume you mean Miller (the NYTimes reporter), and not Plame (the CIA operative).

Details, details. :wink:

As you acknowledged, I agreed to that attribution only to hear the information

It doesn’t seem that the Times is buying much of her defense.