Judy Miller v. Norm Pearlstine

by emptywheel

After Max Frankel's dishonest version of Judy Miller's involvement in the CIA Leak, I was going to ignore Judy's latest bid for attention. I firmly believe that every single appeal she makes for "solidarity" or absolute shield laws discredits the idea. By now it's clear that she (and now Frankel with her) is making her case in the service of power or prestige, rather than truth. Better to have someone credible making the case--Eric Lichtblau or Dana Priest or Walter Pincus--rather than have the idea tainted by association with Judy.

But I wanted to contrast Judy's latest with the upcoming book from Norm Pearlstine, Editor-in-Chief of Time during the period when it was fighting the Cooper subpoena. Pearlstine gets a lot of flack--I've heard journalists refer to the Pearlstine Rule, which credibly suggests that when Time turned over emails relating to Cooper's article, it established a precedent that allows the government to side-step reporters privilege. But Pearlstine appears to be admitting what many reporters want to avoid admitting:

But Pearlstine had also come to understand, as he writes, that the use of confidential sources had been misused by the press, undermining credibility often.

Bingo. You can't dissociate the appeals for reporters privilege from the credibility (or lack thereof) of the reporting associated with it. And the fact that the NYT has chosen to fight this battle with Judy (and Frankel's dishonest story), rather than Lichtblau and Risen, is unfortunate, to say the least.

Though maybe Pearlstine is just miffed that his fate got joined with that of Judy Miller.

One side plot in the book involves Time vs. The New York Times. Pearlstine is often critical of Judith Miller (calling her reasons for going to jail "suspect"), the Times' over-the-top defense of her and its attorney Floyd Abrams, who also represented Cooper for a time. He relates on anecdote that has Cooper, after listening to an Abrams argument in court, writing in his notebook, "Je Suis Fucked."

Pearlstine cites a July 7, 2005, editorial in which the Times ripped his decision to release those documents to the grand jury. "We were deeply disappointed by the decision," the Times had declared.

But Pearlstine comments: "That the Supreme Court had dealt with and disagreed with every important point in the editorial was of no consequence to The New York Times and its editorial writers. Nor, apparently, was the Times's own pledge in the Pentagon Papers case that it would case publication of the papers if the Supreme Court ruled that publication was against the law."

Hmm. Maybe I should send Pearlstine my piece on Frankel. Because it sure seems like he and I agree that the gray lady has gotten downright hypocritical about how its role in the Pentagon Papers reflects on its role in the CIA Leak.

In any case, I look forward to the book, if only for the other side of the story it offers (as well as the dirt it will dish on Viveca Novak).

For now though, you might click through for the cute Fitzgerald and Cooper anecdote. Or read about Judy bragging that the NYT dumped $2 million into defending her in three different cases (anyone know what the third is? Testifiying in the Mohammed Salah's trial? And how does that $2 million compare with what Fitz spent investigating these cases?).

Comments

[Frank Probst]

Did Max Frankel's piece answer this key question: If Judy was such an honorable reporter, a champion for this ideals of journalism, why did the NYT fire her?

[emptywheel]

Nope. But then since Frankel wouldn't even tell us that Judy got a leak from Libby, I wouldn't expect him to be forthcoming about THAT.

[Alice]

The third case was the Safa raids -

http://www.nysun.com/article/45174

I wonder how many real reporters at the NYT were laid off to pay for Judy's legal bills?

[emptywheel]

Alice
Oh, I was counting the Muslim charity tip-offs as number two. What's the other one, then?

[Lindy]

EW, I remember reading something re Judy's connection with a couple of other cases. It was in regard to the negotiations between Team Fitz and Judy Judy Judy for her testimony. Sort of like they negotiated Russert's testimony. Judy or her attorney wanted TF to agree not to go into anything with regard to those other cases. I'll look for the link, but I won't have a chance 'til tonight.

[Lindy]

I'm almost sure one had to do with the AIPIC (forgive me my acronym is off, I have a hard time remembering them all) (Israeli intelligence) case that Justice was pursuing.

[emptywheel]

Okay, let me lay thses out:

Plame: $1 million dollars to fight the subpoena relating to Libby's conversation

Muslim Charities: Likely close to that to fight turning over Judy's (and Phillip Shenon's) phone records so Fitz could figure out who tipped them off to the raids and why

Mohammed Salah: Judy testified for Fitz in the Mohammed Salah trial; she described witnessing his 1993 interrogation by the Israelis, and claimed he was not tortured before he admitted to being Hamas

AIPAC: Judy was referred to in discussions by the defendants, but AFAIK, she has not been called to testify in teh case

[Frank Probst]

Lindy--I think that Pat Fitzgerald would see something like that as a totally reasonable request, but I don't think that's what Judy was negotiating for. She's got "Valerie Flame" written in her notebook, but she says Scooter isn't the person who gave her the name. Obviously, she must have been discussing this with someone else. (Or else she's got one hell of an Ouija board.) I think that THAT'S what she didn't want to talk about.

[Lindy]

Frank, I'm sure you're right. I'm still trying to pin down where I read about that.

[TCinLA]

The New York Times and the Washington Post: had the current leadership of these papers been in charge 35 years ago, Nixon would still be Permanent President, despite his current residence six feet under.