Media Nation

The mild-mannered blogger starts slowly, arguing that the Washington Post has eclipsed the New York Times as our best daily newspaper. Given the Times’ woes in recent years – Wen Ho Lee, Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, the run-up to the Iraq war – it’s a reasonable position to take. Even if the Post doesn’t quite bring the same journalistic resoures to the table as the mighty Times, there’s no question that the House that Ochs Built has repeatedly squandered its readers’ trust.

But Rosen’s essay soon veers off into more satisfying territory: yet another blistering critique of how the Times, as an institution, has placed itself at the mercy of Judith Miller. The other day Rosen wrote about “Judith Miller and Her Times.” Now he expands on that theme, saying:

ROSEN: With many unanswered questions, some of which only the Times can address, being itself a huge actor in the drama, the newspaper has gone into editorial default, as if a plea of nolo contendere had been entered at Supreme News Court in the matter of Judy Miller, prosecutor Fitzgerald and the sputtering New York Times.

Notice that in her first few days out of jail Miller could not manage to: 1.) compose a statement for the Times that reveals anything, 2.) answer a single question from reporters that reveals anything, 3.) say a thing about her grand jury testimony that reveals anything, although it is legal to do so and Matt Cooper of Time magazine did, or 4.) admit that Lewis Libby was her source, even though letters from her lawyer to his lawyer were posted for all to see by the New York Times! (She did it admit it Monday, four days after the whole world knew. This is journalism?)

From what I understand of the code that binds reporters, if you have big news because it happens you are a participant in the news, then you phone the desk because you think of your colleagues and they deserve the scoop. Of course you answer questions from the press when it’s time for that because you’re a source and they can’t write their stories without you. You behave with an awareness that you’re usually in their position, trying to squeeze information out of harried people, who sometimes just want to go home and have a quiet meal. You remain a journalist, even though you have to operate as a source, and defend your interests.

Judy Miller has behaved like she understood not one word of this.

This is very rough and very smart. And it exponentially raises the pressure on the Times to come clean, once and for all, if and when it publishes its promised comprehensive article about Miller and the Plame case.

The first take on Harriet Miers is that President Bush’s counsel and longtime crony is, uh, lightly qualified for the Supreme Court. Slate’s Emily Bazelon does a good job of explaining precisely why Miers fails to measure up.

Bazelon’s comparison is with the woman Miers hopes to replace, Sandra Day O’Connor, who was also seen as possessing a thin résumé when she was appointed by Ronald Reagan. The difference was that O’Connor was actually quite accomplished in arenas that normally escape the notice of Washington insiders. But not Miers.

In Salon, Michael Scherer has a useful roundup of liberal and conservative reaction to the Miers appointment, which can be summarized as befuddled and angry, respectively.

Finally, everyone’s talking about why Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, is wild about Miers. Rick Klein reports in the Boston Globe:

KLEIN: Reid, a frequent Bush critic who voted against Roberts, had asked the president to consider Miers. Reid appeared alongside Miers at the Capitol to tout her qualifications. “I have to say without any qualification that I’m very happy that we have someone like her,” said Reid, Democrat of Nevada.

But has anyone pointed out that Reid, despite being a partisan Democrat, is also a longstanding opponent of abortion rights? Not the Globe, not the New York Times, not the Washington Post and not the Wall Street Journal. A puzzling omission, given that it may explain Reid’s supposedly puzzling positive reaction.

From today’s Washington Post update on the Judith Miller saga:

POST: In a Sept. 15 letter, Libby tells Miller how much he admires her “principled” stand but urges her to testify about their conversations and get out of jail. “For my part, this is the rare case where this ‘source’ would be better off if you testified,” he wrote.

“You went to jail in the summer. It is fall now,” he continued. “Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work – and life.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Miller will tell all, perhaps as soon as this weekend. And not a moment too soon.

In a post headlined “Judith Miller and Her Times,” Jay Rosen writes:

ROSEN: In the mystifying drama of Judith Miller and her Times, I am as clueless as the next person about what’s really going down. But it seems to me we’re watching just that – the actions of Judy Miller’s New York Times. It’s kind of staggering, the way she has hijacked the institution by staging an “epic collision” between herself and the state….

Here, I believe, is the error the Times made. Civil disobedience succeeds when there is clarity in purpose, cogency in argument, and transparency in action. None of which has been apparent in Judy Miller’s epic.

This story is getting stranger and more impenetrable by the day. But now we have two moments to look forward to that might clarify things: the Times’ own coverage, possibly as soon as this weekend, possibly written by Miller herself; and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s final report, which presumably will be issued not long after the grand jury on the Valerie Plame matter expires, on Oct. 28.

Today’s Washington Post account of Judith Miller’s and Scooter Libby’s testimony before the grand jury would appear to undercut the Arianna Huffington theory – that is, that Miller was actually Libby’s source in the Valerie Plame matter.

POST: Sources familiar with Miller’s testimony say her account of two discussions with Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, that July are similar to the account Libby reportedly gave the grand jury last year. Both said they spoke about Plame’s husband, administration critic and former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, on July 8 and again on July 12 or 13. On at least one of those occasions, Libby told Miller that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA, the sources said….

According to a source familiar with Libby’s account of his July 2003 conversations with Miller, the two first met for breakfast on July 8, when Miller interviewed Libby about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. At that time, she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions that Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to learn more about Wilson’s trip and how he was selected.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller, a telephone call on July 12 or July 13, the source said. In it, Libby said he had learned that Wilson’s wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame’s name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

Following Miller’s testimony yesterday, Huffington called on Miller and the Times to go public with everything they know, which strikes me as an eminently reasonable request. In fact, the tone of this Adam Liptak article in today’s Times sounds like there are at least some folks at the Mothership who’d love nothing better than to get this all out in the open.

The most worthwhile speculation online right now is contained on David Corn’s blog. Corn, who covers Washington for the Nation, was almost alone in dogging this story more than two years ago. He writes:

CORN: [Y]ou don’t have to look too far between the lines to discern Libby’s cover story. It goes something like this: Wilson wrote his Times article. All hell broke loose. The White House asked, “Who authorized this trip?” Someone called the CIA for information. The CIA reported back that Wilson was contacted by the counter-proliferation office, where his wife Valerie was working. But – and here’s the crucial “but” – the CIA did not tell the White House that Valerie was undercover. Thus, if any White House officials – say, Rove or Libby – repeated this information to reporters, then they may have been engaged in leaking classified and sensitive information to discredit a critic but they were not committing a crime. And who was at fault? George Tenet, the CIA director at the time.

How convenient. Tenet has already taken the fall for Bush’s decision to launch the war in Iraq. He reportedly told Bush that the WMD case was a “slam-dunk.” And subsequent investigations – from the Republican-controlled Senate intelligence committee and an independent commission that only looked at the intelligence community, not the White House – have excoriated Tenet’s CIA for botching the WMD job. (Still, Bush saw fit to give Tenet a nice medal.)

Tenet is finished in Washington. (Paul Wolfowitz got a medal and was given the top job at the World Bank.) Is Libby looking to point to the dead body in the room and say, “It was him!”? If Libby or any other top White House aide wanted to know what had happened at the CIA regarding Wilson’s trip to Niger, what would he or she have done? The obvious answer is that he or she would have called Tenet and demanded answers. And if Tenet – when he or an aide reported back – did not tell the White House Valerie Wilson was undercover, that would not be the White House’s fault, right? In this scenario, the CIA outed Valerie Wilson.

The David Dreier story seems unlikely to develop any further. A Google News search this morning shows that the question of whether Dreier’s apparent homosexuality cost him Tom DeLay’s job has still not spread beyond the gay and alternative press. And, of course, the blogs.

Did anyone see “Charlie Rose” last night? Dreier was a scheduled guest, but there’s no transcript available yet. I would think that if the topic came up, there’d be an account of it somewhere this morning. So apparently Rose failed to raise the subject. Dreier is supposed to be a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio show today, which, because of Jay Severin’s continued absence, can be heard on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM) from 3 to 6 p.m. (Thanks, Jay!) But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Finally, I recommend Robert David Sullivan’s response to my post yesterday. Click here and scroll down.

I’m hardly the first person to find something awfully strange about Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sudden decision to let New York Times reporter Judith Miller testify about whatever conversations they had regarding Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose cover was blown by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

Miller had been in prison for 85 days because of her refusal to reveal the identity of her confidential source. She knew, of course, that Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, had signed a waiver allowing reporters to identify him. But it wasn’t until very recently, according to today’s coverage, that she was personally assured by Libby that he had not been coerced into signing that waiver and that she was therefore free to testify.

In light of that, this section from today’s Washington Post seems especially puzzling:

POST: Joseph Tate, an attorney for Libby, said yesterday that he told Miller attorney Floyd Abrams a year ago that Libby’s waiver was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify. He said last night that he was contacted by Bennett several weeks ago, and was surprised to learn that Miller had not accepted that representation as authorization to speak with prosecutors.

“We told her lawyers it was not coerced,” Tate said. “We are surprised to learn we had anything to do with her incarceration.”

“We are surprised”? This makes it sound like it was all a big misunderstanding. But Miller had been behind bars since June. How is it possible that Libby didn’t know, or that Miller and her lawyers didn’t move heaven and earth to get Libby to step forward before yesterday?

Mickey Kaus picks up on the Times’ own coverage, which includes this tidbit: “Other people involved in the case have said Ms. Miller did not understand that the waiver had been freely given.” Kaus: “That has to be disingenuous. You mean she was sitting in jail all because she never bothered to inquire and find out that the waiver that would free her was genuine?”

Kaus also recommends Arianna Huffington’s latest. It’s totally speculative, but in the absence of any other information, it’s worth reading. Earlier, Huffington wrote another much-blogged-about piece of speculation guessing that the real reason Miller didn’t want to talk was that she was Libby’s source. That, Huffington wrote, would explain why Miller never actually wrote a story about the Plame matter.

Huffington’s theory was that Miller had as much motive to hurt Plame’s husband, former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson, as anyone in the White House did. After all, it was Miller’s spectacularly wrong pre-war reporting on Iraq’s weapons capabilities and terrorist ties left her looking as bad as the White House itself.

(A little back story: Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for the Times in July 2003 criticizing the administration for ignoring a mission he had undertaken to Niger, a mission that led him to conclude that Saddam Hussein had not sought to obtain uranium from that country. One theory is that Karl Rove and Libby blew Plame’s cover to Novak and other journalists in order to retaliate against Wilson. Then, too, it later turned out that Slick Wilson didn’t tell the whole truth in his op-ed. Search these incomparable archives if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)

At this point, I’m in a state of mild despair as to whether we’ll ever know the whole truth about this weird chapter in high-stakes political gamesmanship. Short of a truly revealing final report by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, or a leak from Miller’s grand-jury testimony, this is likely to remain as impenetrable as it has from the beginning.

Judith Miller of the New York Times has been released from prison after saying that her source in the Valerie Plame matter has given her permission to testify before the grand jury. The source was Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.

Given how closely Miller is said to have relied on Cheney’s office in her flawed reporting on Iraq’s weapons capabilities and terrorist ties, this is pretty much what everyone had figured all along. In fact, Libby and Matthew Cooper’s source, Karl Rove, were always the leading suspects in the guessing game as to who had blown Plame’s CIA cover.

Let’s see how the mainstream media handle this. The Internet – and not just blogspace – is filled with stories today suggesting that U.S. Rep. David Dreier of California may have lost out on a chance to succeed indicted House Republican leader Tom DeLay because Dreier is gay. The job went instead to Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. Check out this search of Google News.

Last September, the Dreier-is-gay story made it well up the food chain, to the LA Weekly, although the Weekly offered no independent confirmation. Instead, the Weekly relied mainly on a report in the Raw Story, a Cambridge-based Web site that is not notably shy about outing people.

Yesterday, WRKO Radio (AM 680) talk-show host Howie Carr, a conservative and a vicious homophobe, snickered about Dreier’s alleged homosexuality (nothing new for Carr). Blogger Josh Marshall, a liberal, offered a not-very-subtle James Dobson joke. Gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan stuck in a one-liner. And the story has been all over the gay press. Just one example: this story from PlanetOut.com.

In other words, this has already entered the common discourse, which isn’t surprising in an era when there are no longer any gatekeepers. (If it hadn’t entered the common discourse, you can be sure that I wouldn’t be writing about it. Outing a gay person who’s closeted is not something to be undertaken lightly.)

So now what? Will this be a subject for Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, and for the Fox News yakkers tonight? Will either the New York Times or the Washington Post publish a piece tomorrow reporting that Dreier’s sexuality had something to do with his being denied the majority leader’s slot? Do stay tuned.

Veteran Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff has some provocative things to say about the relationship between journalists and their confidential sources. And they’re not the kinds of things that would likely sit well with Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who’s been in jail for 83 days because she refuses to give up her source or sources in the Valerie Plame investigation, or Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper, who nearly went to jail in the same probe.

Yesterday, at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, at Harvard’s Kennedy School, Isikoff praised Miller and Cooper for refusing to break their promises of confidentiality. Cooper cooperated with the grand jury only after announcing that his source, who turned out to be Bush political adviser Karl Rove (a story broken by – yes – Isikoff), had given him permission to do so. Time subsequently turned over Cooper’s notes to the grand jury, an action to which Cooper personally objected.

But Isikoff followed up his praise with exasperation, saying he couldn’t understand why neither the Times nor Time magazine pursued the story of who had revealed Plame’s identity even after those promises of confidentiality were made.

“Our primary obligation is not to protect our sources. Our primary obligation is to inform our readers. And I think in the Plame matter there has been a bit of blurring of that fundamental point,” Isikoff said. “Once you make a promise of confidentiality, you’ve got to keep it. But that doesn’t end the conversation. That doesn’t end the reporting. You’re still a reporter. You can’t use that conversation, because it was conducted off the record and you’re honor-bound to that. But don’t stop your reporting.”

Cooper, Isikoff said, should have kept contacting Rove, attempting to cajole him into going on the record and leaning on him with information gleaned from other sources. Instead, Isikoff asserted, “It seems like Time stopped reporting.”

The case of Miller, Isikoff added, is “a huge mystery,” since Miller never actually wrote about the Plame investigation, and both she and the Times have maintained their silence. But, in a notably harsh assessment, Isikoff said Miller’s role in the Plame matter is likely related in some way to her reporting on the run-up to the war in Iraq, “all of which turned out to be spectacularly false.” Miller had broken a series of exclusive stories about Iraq’s alleged weapons capabilities (including the matter of the aluminum tubes, which, she incorrectly reported, could only be used to manufacture nuclear weapons) and ties to terrorist organizations. After it was clear that none of this was true, Miller’s reporting became the subject of tough criticism, some of it from within the Times itself.

Missing from yesterday’s remarks, of course, was any sense of balance coming from Cooper, Miller or their defenders. Isikoff said he and Cooper engaged in “a testy exchange” during a panel discussion at American University recently. (He hastened to add that Cooper is “a really good guy and a really good journalist.”) Unfortunately, there is no record of that exchange in this account of that event published in the American Weekly, the university’s PR organ. The student newspaper, the Eagle, appears not to have covered the panel discussion at all.

Nor is Isikoff himself without some baggage. It was Isikoff who broke the story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky’s relationship in early 1998. (Drudge fans take note: The “story” Drudge broke was that Isikoff had the goods but that Newsweek wasn’t ready to publish his article.) Isikoff credited his then-editor, Ann McDaniel, with pressing him to report aggressively on the motives of Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg and lawyers involved in pursuing Clinton, arguing that was just as big a story as the president’s peccadilloes. Despite his reluctance to turn on his confidential sources, Isikoff said he did just that.

Well, I’m not going to dispute Isikoff. Nor am I prepared to go back and do a comprehensive survey of Newsweek’s reporting from that year. But it strikes me as obvious that a fundamental failing of journalists in reporting on Clinton’s sleazy sex life was that they too often fed off whatever special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and his ilk handed to them without taking a more skeptical look at the $60 million political war being waged against the White House.

Earlier this year, Isikoff became embroiled in a very public controversy when a confidential source told him that U.S. investigators had confirmed incidents of Quran-flushing at Guantánamo – and then backtracked. Newsweek was blamed by opportunistic defenders of the White House for touching off deadly riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though high-ranking military officials declined to draw such a connection. Still, the incident raised new questions about the media’s heavy reliance on confidential sources – a practice that Isikoff defended yesterday.

“It’s not the use of anonymous sources. It’s the thoroughness in checking what they have to say,” Isikoff said, a lesson that was presumably reinforced for him after the Quran story turned out not to be true. As for whether he should have outed the source who misled him, he said, “I never even considered it. There was no dishonesty – he just missed something he had read and passed it along.”

Given that U.S. investigators later verified incidents of Quran abuse at Guantánamo – including, in one case, a Quran being urinated on – Isikoff might have been justified in coming off as a bit cavalier about the subject yesterday. But when he termed “silly” new rules now in place at Newsweek and other publications to disclose more fully why a source won’t allow him- or herself to be identified, he came off as a consummate Washington insider. It may be “patently obvious” (as he put it) why sources won’t go on the record, but it isn’t to the public – which, as we all know, is increasingly turning away from the mainstream media, which they distrust as just another out-of-touch institution.

As for Isikoff’s remarks that Cooper, Miller and their news organizations should have done more to investigate the Plame matter, I think he’s right on target. Whether or not Plame’s cover was blown in order to retaliate against her husband, former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson, remains an important unanswered question. Perhaps we’ll learn more when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald finally issues his report.

But Cooper and Miller should have done whatever they could to advance this story as long as it didn’t require breaking their promises of confidentiality. (And sorry to save this for a parenthetical toward the end, but, needless to say, no one in the media has acted more irresponsibly in this matter than syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who is the journalist who actually outed Plame and who, in Isikoff’s guesstimation, has already cut a deal with Fitzgerald.)

Perhaps Cooper and Miller have done more behind the scenes than Isikoff realizes, but were unable to develop the story. But Isikoff’s basic critique – that journalists too often place their obligations to their sources above their obligations to the public – is absolutely correct.

Former congressman Peter Blute – not a bad guy, as the late Jerry Williams would have said – is leaving his morning talk-show gig at WRKO Radio (AM 680), the Globe’s Names column and the Herald both report. Co-host Scott Allen Miller will continue, apparently as a solo act.

WRKO operations manager Brian Whittemore, in an interview with the Herald’s Jesse Noyes, delivers a gratuitous kick out the door: “It will not be the same show. It will be intelligent and it will be provocative. There will be some well-known Bostonians on the show on a pretty regular basis.” Ouch.

Look, Miller’s no dummy (though I rarely agree with him [Note: In the first version of this post I mistakenly said that I rarely “disagree” with Miller]), but subtracting Blute from the equation is not going to make the show more intelligent. Blute’s departure also messes up the show’s carefully calibrated ideological balance, with Blute as the conservative and Miller as the ultraconservative.

(Disclosure: I used to be a regular paid guest on Pat Whitley’s weekday ‘RKO program – since taken over by John DePetro – and have guest-hosted a couple of times as well.)

Meanwhile, the Herald’s Inside Track gives voice to the most likely speculation regarding WTKK Radio (96.9 FM) talk-show host and Nobel Prize laureate (that’s a joke, son) Jay Severin – that is, that he’s gone from ‘TKK for good, and that he won’t pop up in Boston again until his newly signed Infinity deal kicks in this January.

The nightmare scenario hasn’t changed, either: that Infinity will hand Severin the late David Brudnoy’s time slot on WBZ Radio (AM 1030). Obviously the listeners of Boston – not to mention the current host, Paul Sullivan – deserve a lot better than that.