'NY Times' Alumni Say Miller Scandal is a Hard Hit -- But Not a Mortal Wound

By: Joe Strupp Several of The New York Times' most prominent alumni say the Judith Miller flap, including the recent back-and-forth sniping between Miller and two Times editors this weekend, has seriously hurt the newspaper's image. But they disagreed on what should happen to Miller, or how severely it may harm the paper's future.

"I think the paper has taken a terrible hit," said David Halberstam, one of the Times' most respected alums, and a former Pulitzer Prize-winning writer. "I think it is shocking that this young woman who has been a known identified land mine for a long time seems to have guaranteed loyalty to the office of the Vice President of the United States more than to The New York Times."

Tom Wicker, a 25-year columnist for the Times who spent 31 years at the paper before retiring, said the Miller story hurts even more following the Jayson Blair scandal of 2003 and the paper's self-critical editors' note in 2004 admitting faulty Iraq reporting.

"To follow the Blair scandal and the editors' note, this seems to be a terrible hit on the Times credibility, which I regret sincerely," Wicker said. "I think it is doubly too bad because the public already thinks the press is unreliable. It does lower the Times' credibility in the public eye."

Adam Clymer, a 26-year newsroom veteran who held several editing posts and covered politics before leaving in 2003, said the recent infighting is not unusual. "I'm not surprised that it seems to be spinning out of control," he told E&P. "I am disappointed. I would have hoped they would have been more decisive more quickly. I don't think they have fully thought through what to do about Miller. They want to look forward and not face difficult problems."

Wicker also questioned some of the paper's actions related to coverage of the story. "There were questions about her when she was in jail, since she got out, and I think the effort to clear that up has been good," he said. "But how it comes out and the totality of it is not good for the Times."

While the Times staunchly supported Miller during her time behind bars, the Oct. 16 probe in the paper, which revealed her unwillingness to provide information on several areas of the story to colleagues, has sparked new disputes between her and Executive Editor Bill Keller and Public Editor Byron Calame. After critical public comments by both editors about her actions, Miller this past weekend sent each critical notes attacking their views.

Following such internal sniping, Clymer believes Miller should be fired, noting, "she wouldn't level with her colleagues. That refusal to cooperate was unconscionable after what the paper had gone through for her." He also noted that "she has been a skilled reporter who breaks stories, but she cuts corners and has been divisive for years. Executive editors before Keller have tried to put limits on her, but it has never seemed to work."

Miller and Keller did not return calls seeking comment.

Halberstam declined to opine on Miller's future. Wicker stopped short of calling for her dismissal, but found it hard to believe she would want to come back. "I would think she herself would want to move on," Wicker said. "I don't think she would have a treasured position at the Times."

When asked about the paper's future image following such a high-profile disruption, the veterans believed it would not have a permanent impact, but may hurt it for a while. "Everybody predicted that with the Jayson Blair scandal, and it did not prove true," Wicker said. "I think the public realizes mistakes are made. I think people will trust the Times."

Clymer's take: "I think they'll get out of it because it is still a great newspaper, it still spends an awful lot of money covering news, and makes money in the process." But, he added, "this hurts. Two major uproars in a period of two and a half years is pretty terrible. It shouldn't happen."