Fat Steve's Blatherings

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The Judy Miller Show

Summary:

        Judy Miller keeps trying to spin her actions, but the joke's getting old, and the lies don't convince anymore.

At Length:

        In a New York Times story, America's Sweetheart Judy Miller finally admits that Libby was one of her sources.  She also says she was holding out for an agreement with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald that she would only testify about Libby.  She got that deal, and as part of it, agreed to turn over her notes, but only after editing them to remove anything that wasn't related to Libby.

        She's still coyly not saying she had another source, but it's nailed down about as tight as possible — unless she's just blowing smoke.  I suppose it's still possible she got tired of sitting in jail, and brought up this 'I have to be assured I won't be asked about other sources' solely as an attempt to conceal her folding on principles.

        Judy also showed up at CNN, where she trotted out her sob story of how she was protecting "the public's right to know."  Somehow, the public's right to know entailed her going to jail rather than testify, but doesn't require her to tell us anything about what she and Scooter Libby said, what the Grand Jury asked, and what she told them.  As a member of the public, I hope that leaves you clear on your rights?

        Meanwhile, Judy grandstands about the need for a federal shield law.  Question: do you think the Congress will ever, under any circumstances, pass a shield law that says a reporter doesn't have to testify in federal court in national security cases?  If so, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

        The one thing that comes through for me in all this is that Miller and her supporters really do feel that they are above the laws the rest of us have to obey.

        Meanwhile, Jay Rosen has an excellent post on what he sees as the decline of the New York Times, and its determination to avoid passing out certain information.  (ht: Instapundit).  I disagree with him on only one point.  He thinks this is a new phenomenon for the Times, while I think it's just the same old song of editing-as-lying.  Note how Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are still trying to sell their "Bush Guard service" story, and would probably succeed if the documents hadn't been such incompetent fakes.

        So I don't think the Times has declined so much in its newgathering ability, as it has in its ability to get away with its deceptions.  But read Rosen's post, it's very good.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED — AND WILL BE!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home