'NY Times' Backs Miller Again in Editorial

By: E&P Staff Criticized by many for standing so belligerently behind Judith Miller in her legal tangle, and then failing to comment on the current Miller controversy at the paper, The New York Times editorial page finally returned to defend the embattled reporter today.

But in a news article, the paper observed that the federal prosecutor seemed to believe that Miller's refusal to testify last year delayed yesterday's results by up to a full year, going back to before the 2004 election. "Instead, Ms. Miller fought the case, appealing it all the way to the United States Supreme Court," wrote Katharine Seelye and Adam Liptak.

In its editorial analyzing the indictments of "Scooter" Libby returned yesterday by a federal grand jury, the Times reiterated its backing for Miller's original decision in refusing to testify, and said it had "no reservations" about backing her in jail, while noting that perhaps her struggle could have been handled somewhat differently:

"Journalists from some news organizations testified after trying to fight the subpoenas; others testified on the basis of a document White House officials were compelled to sign that said they waived any promises of confidentiality from reporters. Ms. Miller says she believed the waiver was coerced, and she went to jail until Mr. Libby assured her directly that he was freeing her from her promise.

"While she was imprisoned for 85 days, this newspaper and this page gave Ms. Miller unwavering support. Recently, Times executives have expressed regrets about some of the ways her case was handled. Reflecting on these events, we have no reservations about the obligation of this paper to stand behind our reporter while she was in jail. We also think Ms. Miller was right on the central point, that the original blanket White House waiver was coerced."

Miller's colleague at the Times, columnist Maureen Dowd, who recently dubbed her the "Woman of Mass Destruction," today seemed to take another swipe at her, writing: "There is something grotesque about Scooter's hiding behind the press with his little conspiracy, given that he's part of an administration that despises the press and tried to make its work almost impossible."

Fellow columnist John Tierney, however, suggested that the administration leaks about Plame were not deliberate, nothing but an "accident."

He said journalists will suffer: "Still, the biggest losers so far in this case -- aside, of course, from Scooter Libby - are journalists. We've spent our careers assuring sources that we'll protect them, but now they can see how our testimony led to one source's indictment. If there's a trial, reporters will have to publicly betray Libby's confidences - and probably endure assaults on their integrity and accuracy from Libby's lawyers."