WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Debating Judith Miller, 'NY Times,' Shield Laws and Interracial Dating

By: E&P Staff As Judith Miller testifies in the CIA leak case today for the second day in a row, The New York Times has yet to explain its reporter's personal involvement in the case, with Executive Editor Bill Keller offering assurances that "once her obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can." Still, several E&P readers are growing frustrated with the Times' silence. The case appears to be nearing its denouement, but interested media consumers currently have more questions than answers. Here are but a few of the perspectives on the leak investigation, plus views on the Miller-inspired effort to enact a federal shield law for journalists, and one reader's view on a recent Gallup poll indicating more Americans are accepting of interracial dating than ever before.

***

Judith Miller, 'Witness to the Neocon Mob'

Re: Allan Wolper's column, Why Judith Miller and the New York Times Lost My Support

If the New York Times' publisher and his executive editor cared as much about the First Amendment as they claim to, then why is there no freedom of speech or freedom of the press at The Times when it comes to Judith Miller?

Where are Frank Rich's or Maureen Dowd's free musings about Millergate? Or Douglas Jehl's or Eric Lichtblau's or Adam Liptak's incisive, in-depth analyses of the legal situation Ms. Miller has put herself and her paper and the nation in? And where in God's name is the paper's Public Editor, Byron Calame, who has enough time to do a back-patting piece in this past Sunday's Times about the "unusually intelligent, sophisticated and well educated" typical readers of the Times, but, curiously, has never done a piece about the whole Judith Miller-Iraq-Plamegate journalistic fiasco and the effect it has had on the morale of the paper's reporters, as well as on the trust its millions of readers formerly had in the journalistic standards of the Times.

Mr. Sulzberger's and Mr. Keller's devotion to the person of Judith Miller rather than to the higher principles of journalistic truth and integrity has not only hurt their personal reputations, but more importantly, has besmirched and disgraced, perhaps irreparably, the august reputation of the Times.

David Wyles
Playa Del Rey, CA.

***

Above the Law?

The Judith Miller-inspired debate over whether journalists are "above the law" misses the point, in my view. Last time I checked, the First Amendment says that the government "shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

How can journalists be considered above or below a law that cannot constitutionally be written?

Michael Ryan
Editorial Page Editor
The Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle

Ed's Note: Good question? If anyone can offer an explanation, e-mail E&P's Online Editor.

***

Re: Shield Law Sponsor: Bloggers 'Probably Not' Considered Journos

This country must not permit government certification of the "press." Be careful what you wish for, you may get more than you bargained for.

P. J. Shufeldt Sr.
Louisville, Ky.

***

Judith Miller and The Silent Times

I've been thinking about the curious silence of the NY Times on the Miller-Libby-Rove-et. al. story and have a thought.

Is it possible that the Times publisher wants this story to play out in other media outlets so that it cannot be disparaged as the "liberal MSM" going after Republicans. Kind of the "only Nixon could go to China" philosophy?

Under this line of thinking, letting the story unfold in conservative media outlets such as Fox News gives the story the gravitas that it needs, and serves to unquestionably nail top officials in this administration. (Think of the problem of Dan Rather doing the National Guard story -- the messenger is the story rather than the underlying possible truths of the story).

In the end, the Times can fill in the missing pieces after the indictments come and the testimony is publicly released.

Just a thought.

John Jernberg
St. Paul, Minn.

***

I am a Harvard Law School-educated, Midwestern attorney. I used to be a committed reader of The New York Times. Now, I find that I can't read the paper at all. Since 9/11, the paper's credibility has been systematically demolished by the current management, and their political reporters.

The contempt that the Times holds it readers in is apparent. The arrogance of management is hard to understand.

I have deep sadness for the state of our national discourse. The Times is as much to blame for that any media source -- including cable, television and radio.

Do the editors and other management even read your stories?

Marc Lipton
Lipton Law Center
Southfield, Mich.

***

Re: Shield Law Sponsor: Bloggers 'Probably Not' Considered Journos

Thank you for publishing this noteworthy story. I will have to read the proposed bill and see what it entails as to the fine details. From what you wrote though, the founding fathers of this country, Paul Revere, and more than a few others who helped found this country would be tossed in jail! The Senate, House of Representatives and all political figures should have paid handlers.

The blueprints are being laid for a government that is no longer "We The People."

Martin F. Medearis

***

The Difference Between 'Approval' and 'Not Caring'

Ed's Note: On Tuesday, we printed the results from a recent Gallup poll indicating that Americans strongly approve of interracial dating, a marked contrast from public perception in the middle part of the last century.

I think your stats on interracial dating are misleading.

I believe most Americans don't care if there is interracial dating with 95% of younger people (18-29) not caring, but I don't think most approve.

There is a significant difference in the words "not caring" and "approving."

For example I'm one who doesn't care if most Americans date persons of a different race but I don't approve of it.

As a further example, I don't care if most Americans in the U.S. have a different sex partner every night and unprotected sex with all of them. That doesn't mean I approve of it.

I don't care if most Americans in the U.S. use drugs on a regular basis. That doesn't mean I approve of it.

I just want you to know I think you are missing the message.

Thanks for listening.

Ed Dettenheim
Haynesville, La.