By: Joe Strupp The New York Times' much-anticipated report on Judy Miller and the Valerie Plame case, and Miller's own account of her time in jail and sourcing issues, drew mixed reactions from newspaper editors Monday.
While most praised the Times for attempting to explain in Sunday's paper what occurred in the widely-covered case -- which included Miller spending 85 days in jail for refusing to reveal a source -- many also found some fault with the report that ran Sunday, either in its comprehension or approach.
While a handful of editors contacted by E&P declined to comment because they had either not read the Times articles or did not want to weigh in, others offered a variety of critiques.
"There are some real troubling things about it," said David McCumber, managing editor of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "It is strange that a reporter of her credentials and experience would not be able to remember where that name came from in her notebook." McCumber's comments were in reference to Miller's assertion in her first-person piece that she did not recall who told her the identity of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, which was found as "Valerie Flame" in one of her notebooks.
John Temple, editor and publisher of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, also noted such surprise. "It is hard to believe that Judy Miller couldn't remember the name of the source that gave her Valerie Plame's name," Temple said.
McCumber, who is the top-ranking editor at the P-I, also said the Times report left him wanting more information. "It did not satisfy me," he said, adding that the paper's recent failure to break much of the news about the story also didn't help. "They did not do the readers any favors by letting those stories pass them by," he said.
Both editors also commented on what appeared to be Miller's ability to do whatever she wanted in the coverage, according to the Sunday report. "Her cooperation with Times reporters left a lot to be desired," McCumber said. "In a larger sense, she seemed to be operating with no control and you get the sense that she really called her own tune."
For Temple, the report indicated that Miller was given as much freedom as disgraced former Times reporter Jayson Blair, who was forced out in 2003 after several years of flaunting rules, making up sources, and lying to editors. "She had tremendous leeway, the way that Jayson Blair did," Temple said. "I found it disturbing that they let her decide who is going to see the notes. There is a lot of confusion and cloudiness in the matter."
Robert Mong, editor of the Dallas Morning News, described the report as "introducing some ambiguity that did not exist before." Particularly, he said it made an unclear reference to Miller getting higher security clearance during her embedding in Iraq. "I was a little confused about the security clearance," he said. "But [the story] was better than not doing it."
At The Oregonian in Portland, Executive Editor Peter Bhatia also commended the Times' effort, but noted "a lot of newsrooms around the country still have questions, questions about the second source and the timing of how eveything played out."
Nancy Conway, editor of The Salt Lake Tribune, also found the report lacking information. "I think it left us with questions, how this all played out between the editors, the organization, and Judy Miller," Conway said. "Who was determining how to cover the story?" She also praised the Times for trying to be transparent, but added, "I'm just not sure how successful they were."
Susan Goldberg, executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News, did not want to comment on the report, but stressed that any newspaper covering itself has a tough challenge. "It is excruciatingly difficult," she said. "This would be any editor's nightmare."
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here