By: Joe Strupp The New York Times may have hoped to turn the page with Sunday's lengthy article on reporter Judy Miller's entanglement in the CIA leak investigation, but the paper and its star reporter continue to be the focus of media attention. On Tuesday, the Times newsroom was still buzzing about what will happen next.
Inside the paper, some reporters say Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. will take the blame for leading the paper's defense of Miller. Still others point to Executive Editor Bill Keller, who admitted Sunday that he would have done things differently in the Times' handling of the case.
Officially, the Times remains mum about Miller's future -- she is currently taking some time off -- and also has not addressed the nagging question about what kind of security clearance she enjoyed as an embed in Iraq, a revelation she put forth in her first-person report on Sunday but did not fully explain.
But for those working at the paper, the fallout and unknown future seem to create more of a stir each day, and less certainty about what is really going on.
"Everybody's buzzing about it," said one staffer, who requested anonymity. "It shows how Arthur [Sulzberger] really gave the wheel to her, gave control to one person, and that is devastating."
Newsroom employees said speculation is mounting that either Sulzberger or Keller might become the fall guy. But many admit it may depend on the next move by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is leading the Plame investigation. If he chooses to indict anyone, especially a White House aide, it could shift attention away from the newspaper.
"We have learned that the executive editor of The New York Times can lose his job," one Times reporter said, referring to former executive editor Howell Raines, who was fired after the Jayson Blair scandal two years ago. "But it seems the publisher is in more trouble. We know that Arthur was driving the editorials, and we were constrained from writing anything."
Another longtime staffer agreed, noting, "The big issue is Sulzberger. He is the one who turned the paper over to Miller and he is left holding the bag."
Keller and Sulzberger have not returned calls this week from E&P seeking comment. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins, whose section published numerous editorials supporting Miller in recent months, also could not be reached.
As opposed to the Blair scandal, which exposed the former Times reporter's ability to make up facts, lie about his reporting, and plagiarize, some staffers contend that the Miller story could have a greater impact.
"It's sort of 'strike two,'" one reporter said. "This is deeply institutional, so in a way it is worse [than Blair] and the implications of it are worse, for the press and the paper, that we are capable of suppressing reporting of an important story." The staffer added that any plans for Miller to return to the paper would be "hard for me to imagine."
One staffer noted that when it comes down to how many supporters and the number of detractors Miller has in the Times newsroom, "The critical camp is larger than the supportive camp."
Another employee offered a more positive response, saying the Miller report had drawn mixed reactions in the newsroom. But the staffer did not believe it delivered the knockout punch that others had described. "Defenders of Judy think it played out in an acceptable way, and her opponents and critics think it is a disaster," the person said of the Sunday report.
The same staffer sought to play down any negative impact on the Times: "It's hard to say that bad decisions were made. I think the intentions were good. Now that we are freed from constraints, I think the coverage can proceed unimpeded. There is a feeling that the paper acquitted itself pretty well in running the story. It stopped and dealt with some hard issues."
But not everyone is so positive. One newsroom veteran said staffers remained "baffled" that Miller was allowed to dictate what actions she would take and what information she would give. "People are just amazed that Judy didn't cooperate with them and that she has been able to run amok to this day," the staffer said. "No one blames the reporters who did the [Sunday] story, they blame her, and, possibly, management for not forcing her to come to the table. There is a sense that this is not over."
Managing Editor Jill Abramson declined to comment on the Sunday report, as did Managing Editor John Geddes. When asked if the paper would increase or reduce its Miller-related coverage following the report, Geddes said only, "We're going to cover events as they unfold."
When asked about Miller's assertion that she had gotten special security clearance as an embed, Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis did not respond. Mathis addressed complaints that Miler had not been cooperative with reporters on the story by saying, "Judy limited her discussion but she did speak to reporters on two separate occasions and wrote the article that appeared in Sunday's paper."
Mathis also did not say whether Miller was on paid or unpaid leave or when she might return, or in what capacity. "Judy is taking some time off," was the Times' official explanation.
Howell Raines, who was contacted by E&P via e-mail at his home in Pennsylvania, declined to comment on the Miller situation. But former managing editor Gerald Boyd, who also lost his job as a result of the Blair scandal, said the Miller case and the paper's Sunday report highlight the need for newspapers to tell as much to readers as possible. "It underscores the importance of transparency when dealing with readers," Boyd said. "Telling them everything you can as soon as you can."
Boyd declined to comment specifically on the Times reporting of Miller, noting, "I don't know the ins and outs of what went on." But he stressed that the criticism the Times has received shows "the need for editors to level with the audience and their readers. That kind of openness is really essential."
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here