Sunday, July 10, 2005
Frank Rich...
...wow.
One interesting part of this piece -- though by no means the focus-- is Rich's willingness to at least touch on the "special problem" Judith Miller has:
And therein the problem bringing decent people to the table on the issue of protecting sources: Miller has no credibility. Honest Americans who would usually go to the mat in defense of journalists protecting their sources -- especially in the face of intimidation by an abusive executive branch--are furious at Miller, and that fury is driving their feelings now.
They don't trust her. They don't know who she's protecting, or why -- and they don't trust her. "She's probably protecting Karl Rove" is what we're hearing at barbecues. "Let her rot in jail".
Ridiculous? Spiteful? Short-sighted? Sure. But not incomprehensible. This is the woman who channeled Ahmad Chalabi for the Bush Administration on the front page on the NY Times.
People are angry, and there's been no reckoning.
If the Times -- and individual journalists -- want to bring Americans along with them on this they need to do better than "notoriously credulous". They need to acknowledge -- flatly -- what Judith Miller did, how it hurt her credibility, and why her dilemma is still important and worthy of our support.
They need to say, "Look, we understand what happened. We understand what you think Judy did, what you blame her for, and all that -- but you need to get on the right side of this anyway, and here's why..."
Until that happens, plenty of honest, decent Americans are going to put their better judgment aside, and give in to the angry urge to let Judith Miller suffer a little.
One interesting part of this piece -- though by no means the focus-- is Rich's willingness to at least touch on the "special problem" Judith Miller has:
The Niger uranium was hardly the only dubious evidence testifying to Saddam's supposed nuclear threat in the run-up to war. Judy Miller herself was one of two reporters responsible for a notoriously credulous front-page Times story about aluminum tubes that enabled the administration's propaganda campaign to trump up Saddam's W.M.D. arsenal. But red-hot uranium was sexy, and it was Mr. Wilson's flat refutation of it that drove administration officials to seek their revenge..."Notoriously credulous", while more than the Times is usually willing to allow, does not nearly bring the paper up to speed with its readership -- the vast majority of which is mighty angry at Judith Miller, the Times' own letters section notwithstanding.
And therein the problem bringing decent people to the table on the issue of protecting sources: Miller has no credibility. Honest Americans who would usually go to the mat in defense of journalists protecting their sources -- especially in the face of intimidation by an abusive executive branch--are furious at Miller, and that fury is driving their feelings now.
They don't trust her. They don't know who she's protecting, or why -- and they don't trust her. "She's probably protecting Karl Rove" is what we're hearing at barbecues. "Let her rot in jail".
Ridiculous? Spiteful? Short-sighted? Sure. But not incomprehensible. This is the woman who channeled Ahmad Chalabi for the Bush Administration on the front page on the NY Times.
People are angry, and there's been no reckoning.
If the Times -- and individual journalists -- want to bring Americans along with them on this they need to do better than "notoriously credulous". They need to acknowledge -- flatly -- what Judith Miller did, how it hurt her credibility, and why her dilemma is still important and worthy of our support.
They need to say, "Look, we understand what happened. We understand what you think Judy did, what you blame her for, and all that -- but you need to get on the right side of this anyway, and here's why..."
Until that happens, plenty of honest, decent Americans are going to put their better judgment aside, and give in to the angry urge to let Judith Miller suffer a little.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I was wondering if anyone else was going to pick up on Rich's reference to Miller's role in promoting the aluminum tube story. I'm glad Rich (and you folks) made mention of it. We're holding the Administration's feet to the fire, but we're going about it in a credible, honest way.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
