TUESDAY'S LETTERS: More Advice for Judith Miller, 'New York Times'

By: E&P Staff Letters, we get letters, we gets lots and lot of letters. The problem is, the "letters" section at this Web site is pretty much buried up there in the site index (this will probably come as a surprise to most of you reading this). When we launch our new blog in September, publishing a lot of feedback will no longer be any problem. Until then, or until we are able to set up a more prominent letters feature right here on the home page, we will carry a daily entry in this spot, called, variously, "MONDAY's LETTERS," "TUESDAY's LETTERS" and so. We will add letters as they come in, at the top, so check back every few hours, if you wish, for the latest update. Or, blog-like, you can respond to a letter you find here. Here's a start for Tuesday, most recent first, with many more to come.

***

In reference to the story Why Few Graphic Images from Iraq Make it to U.S. Papers:

You are being way too narrow towards the censorship that is now occurring. Nothing gets published from Baghdad without military consent. You should have discussed the difference between the Vietnam photojournalism and now. The American government learned that true photojournalism can make or break the public support of a war. This also applies towards censorship of the photos of the London bombings that just occurred. This was the largest bombing since W.W.II and on the 2nd day after the attacks the same watered down, U. S government approved front page photo ran in all the papers -- a woman looking out of a bus window. On the 3rd day what happened was completely left out of the front page headline. The U.S papers also only mentioned Europe's moment of silence for the victims after it had already taken place. We all should have been told about it and participated. It's not the U.S. people that do not want to see the truth in photojournalism, it's government that is afraid of losing control if the truth is seen.

Deanna M. Olson
Minneapolis, MN

***

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for expressing my own opinion re Judith Miller so well.

Like you, I've been saying my shock is that any of these journalists accepted this information off the record or on deep background. Where I come from -- 27 years in the biz -- these deals are definitely two-way streets, and no decent reporter agrees to accepts confidential information without finding out first why it is being given only confidentially.

Has anyone asked editors of Miller, Cooper and Novak if they found out what reason Rove and Libby gave them for a need for confidentiality before either publishing or giving legal counsel?

The GOP spin now is all about how it was OK to betray Plame's CIA job for any variety of lame reasons, but if the leakers had these defenses from the start, why did they need confidentiality?

Like you say, the reporters should have recognized they had been burned with non-news "information" and have called the foul right on that doorstep.

?

The Supremes in Brandenberg never gave us absolute privilege but set standards -- very high standards -- for subpeonaes on journalists. As an American citizen 24/7 while a journo 40 hours/week (supposedly), I have to have faith Hogan satisfied this high legal standard or the 2005 Supremes wouldn't have let it stand.

Why Miller is in jail lies within those redactions, and I'm disappointed so many of us are making a stink about violations of what they mistakenly think are absolute privilege. They are going off without even acknowledging they don't have the whole story.

Jon
Chicago

***

You forgot an important point in your entire article.

She's in jail for contempt of court!

She was not sent to a country club, club med or a resort. If she does not want to abide by the rules of the court then be big enough to accept the punishment regardless of what it is.

Frank S.
Texas

***

Excuse me...

But Miller did not go to jail to "protect a source." Miller wrote stories she knew were false to help justify an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Let me repeat that... Judith Miller wrote stories she knew were false. Judith Miller is protecting Judith Miller with her silence.

The Downing Street Memos clearly lays out the plot to "fix the facts" and she knows that better than anyone because she is the fixer.

Judith Miller has committed treason. She went to prison to avoid implicating herself in crimes against our nation, and she is using other reporters to invoke the very Constitution she has betrayed.

If I were a reporter, I would report that.

Proud to be blogging!!!!

Christy Cole
Louisiana

***

Dear Editor,

Sam Smith [See July 18 column] could not have hit the nail on the head any harder than he did. He has very exactly shown that Judith Miller was not being a correspondent on this issue as she wrote no article about the matter.

She is protecting a felon and for that deserves exactly what she got, to sit in jail till she realises what she has done.

The New York Times, in trying to protect Judith Miller, is only protecting its own interests as it was the newspaper that used Judith Miller and her "source," Ahmed Chalabhi, to drum up the support for an illegal war.

The New York Times is also a felon in this instance. Saying a mere sorry is no answer. The Senior Editors of New York Times need also to serve their time if "journalism" and "journalists" are to be done justice.

Yours sincerely

Jacob Matthan
Oulu, Finland