WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Is Keller Just an 'Editorial Observer'? Plus Thoughts on 2,000 Dead in Iraq

By: E&P Staff Our in boxes are overflowing. Below, readers share views on the latest developments in the New York Times/Judith Miller saga, the related CIA leak investigation, and the 2,000th U.S. death in Iraq.

***

Is Keller an 'Executive Editor' or 'Editorial Observer'?

The Judith Miller incident has raised more questions about New York Times management than the Jayson Blair affair did. This reaches all the way to the top? with top down direction.

Blair was a thief. He stole for himself and fooled whomever he had to for his own personal gain and took advantage of decades of trust built up by hundreds of NYT reporters who never would have dreamt of games like his. Others suffered because he got away with it for so long, but it was a contained incident. Every trusted institution in the world has a few Blairs? from banks, corporate America, and governments to universities and nonprofits.

The Judith Miller case is far, far worse. She is a high-minded ideologue and a gifted reporter who has done great work on the Islamic world, too easily forgotten in the furor over her WMD reporting. She had credibility of her own. And she was allowed to use that credibility to get a free hand over her superiors and the best interest of her paper from the Publisher Arthur Sulzberger.

EVERYONE needs an editor ? even the finest editors in the world respect that. Even the most arrogant reporter in his heart of hearts knows his ass has been saved numerous times by some lowly rewrite man, or editor on the desk who will never see a byline. The accumulated wisdom and experience in a news organization slows things down.. but what emerges should be changed for the better.

To let anyone pass directly through to a paper's readers is an abdication of responsibility that shames everyone in the newsroom of the New York Times and bankrupts their credibility at a time when the paper is already reeling from financial and circulation problems. Bill Keller's diffident admission that she directly disobeyed his beat instructions and he knew it and did nothing about it , means his title should be changed from ? executive editor? to ?editorial observer.?

It is up to the publisher to decide if he wants to allow that to become a permanent new job description when he is laying off hundreds of valued staff. But this time the apology needs to come from the Fourteenth Floor. And it needs to be accompanied by drastic remedial action.

This isn't a departmental clean up. It is a failure at the highest level of corporate responsibility to maintain and improve the asset owned by The New York Times Company's shareholders. Keller's explanation that probably he shouldn't have been such a nice and considerate guy in handling the Judith Miller case is almost as absurd as Arthur Sulzberger's sweet notion in his aside to The Wall Street Journal that ?we can all hope this period is behind us. ...? Somehow, it is hard to believe his Board of the Directors will take quite so casual a view.

Thomas H. Lipscomb
Senior Fellow
Annenberg Center for the Digital Future
New York, N.Y.

***

Admitting Mistakes is Good, But Credibility Already Suffering

I do enjoy reading your material, for I teach ethics, which can become intensely political on my campus. Though few students have paid attention to the brewing controversy over the outing of a CIA covert agent (though I will predict that there was not crime here), the ones who do seem to be intensely partisan. Unfortunately, the facts of the case and the logic of an observant reader have been abandoned in this press investigation. FACT: The New York Times was reporting on WMD's and other Iraqi atrocities as early as 1998, in particular when President Clinton was claiming the exact same thing that President Bush claimed before the invasion. Yet the Times fails to remember what its reporters wrote at that time. FACT: Judith Miller was released to reveal her source long before she decided to do jail time.

When these issues are seen for what they are, it's the media that has egg on its face. I read multiple media sources to glean information, and then decide for myself which to believe. However, when a member of the media, in this case The New York Times, commits the fallacy of half truths by its own record of reporting, it, as a news organization with a history of honest and quality reporting, loses credibility. No wonder Keller admits mistakes. It's a matter of which mistakes he admits and how that admission affects the perception of his news organization.

Steve Reiter

***

The 2000 Milestone

Re: Military's Advice to Reporters: 2,000 Dead in Iraq 'Not a Milestone'

Per Boylan, yes, 2000 is important because it can be used as an unfortunate milestone.

But my motives are not ulterior: I want the war to stop and to have a 100% withdrawal effective immediately. The 2000 mark is a great point to do that. Just like 1999 was, and just like 2001 will be. Just ask the parents of the 1999th and 2001st troop killed. And the 3000th. And the 4000th.

2000 is as good a number as any to take an insanity checkpoint and stop this mess.

James Madison

***

Regarding your story on a military spokesperson's urging the media, and by association the public, not to consider the 2000th death of a member of the U.S. Armed Forces a milestone, I wish you had reported on another take on the same issue: namely, the viewpoint of Operation Truth. Operation Truth (optruth.org) is an organization of, by, and for those who have served or are still serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its mission is to educate the American public on the realities of the situation in those areas, in the words of those actually doing the serving.

Contrary to Lt. Col. Boylan's request, OpTruth is asking those who purport to support the troops to write letters to the editors of their various local newspapers, asking them to note this sad and tragic milestone, and to keep a daily log of the dead, on the front pages of their respective newspapers.

I found it ironic that Boylan called the milestone, "an artificial mark on the wall set by individuals with specific agendas and ulterior motives," in light of the fact that he then he goes on to parrot the Bush Administration's own specific agenda and ulterior motives about this disaster of a war -- a war that many Americans now view as a war based on deception and, yes, ulterior motives. In the same way that this administration has denied access to photos of the coffins returning home, we are now being asked by the man behind the curtain not to pay attention to 2000 dead. At what point should we begin to be concerned, then? 5000? 10,000?

But my real issue here is the lack of a differing view in your piece. It would be helpful, no matter the subject, to offer a dissenting view and let the public make up its own mind. It seems increasingly clear that in this debacle of a war, the American people already have made up their minds.

J. G. Hayes
Stoneham, Mass.

***

How is Boylan's missive repugnant? Let me count at least some of the ways.

First, it is repugnant because he is telling the press how to report on the facts, rather than doing his proper job of simply relating facts about the war to the press. It is not the job of the military to tell the rest of us how to think about the war -- he seems to go beyond spinning/framing issues and doing all he can to decide how the press should do so.

Secondly, it is simply false on its face. Unfortunately, as seen on this thread, too many liberals and such are easily guilt-tripped. Of course 2000 is a milestone. Why? I hate to state the obvious, but because when counting up the number of casualties, it's a round number. The same would be true of the number of homicides reported in a major city or any other statistic that counts up large numbers. When the count of the number of people dead in Darfur hit 100,000, is that not a milestone? We live in a society that uses a number system whose foundation is a base of 10. Humans tend to think in round numbers. Get used to it.

The most venal aspect of Boylan's missive is part of a pattern we have seen, with some on the Web accusing peace activists of "celebrating" the casualties. This idea is now being insinuated quite plainly by government officials paid by your tax dollars. Who is this punk in military colors to tell me or the peace movement that we focus on the number out of "ulterior motives"? (best defense = good offense)

One person, a self-described liberal vet, described his fury at the suggestion by some anonymous poster that liberals were celebrating the "milestone." But in an only slightly slicker way, that's what the Lt. Col. was saying too. The round number would be considered a milestone in the absence of any peace movement. Was 1000 a milestone only because United for Peace and Justice said so? By using the monopoly of the media and various underground "chains of command" in U.S. culture, as well as the ingrained habit of liberals to exercise a certain cringing deference to the right, even as they ever so respectfully dissent (something the RW doesn't do at all towards the left), many liberals feel it necessary to back away, to say it somehow isn't the milestone it obviously is, and to feel ashamed or guilty. Authentic progressives need to get over such habits of "cultural servility," the way Anton Chekhov describes having to wring the Russian serf out of his character "drop by drop." It is a milestone, one that, being a round number means something to the typical person in the U.S. and around the world, and progressives have no reason to be ashamed to commemorate this tragic milestone with appropriate protests against the war -- the war that gave rise to this milestone.

It is also a mockery of the gravity of war for this eagle-laden punk to suggest that the only milestones in war that count are the happy ones that suggest (in this case falsely) that the war's objectives are (for public consumption) being achieved. The numbers of deaths, and the injured, and the money costs, and the TIME we have spent in these unquestionably glorious and necessary adventures of war are all milestones. Don't let freepers from the Pentagon or on the Web cow you or anyone from frankly recognizing this milestone for what it is, and protesting it.

Jeffrey Holman (aka "Cloudy")
Springfield MA

***

Agreed. It is not a milestone. It is a millstone and it is around our collective necks. This from the same military who this week decided to release enemy casualty numbers? That's rich.

Michael Brunson
Carlsbad, Calif.

***

Where are the Moderates?

You ask where are the moderates in the Miller story? They are where they always are in cases like this. They are quietly reading about the issue from both sides. Tossing out 90% of the stuff they read as partisan B.S. from both sides and patiently waiting for the facts to come in and then render a judgment. A moderate is smart enough to know that one statement or issue is not the whole story. And when someone writes so ardently about an issue before the facts are in, they are simply writing from opinion and not from fact. Every story I have seen so far has been slanted to one of a great deal of sides. Maybe this is not bias but it is certainly not fact. What I wouldn't give to go a day without reading a story about Miller.

Yeah I know I don't have to read them but your letters section is my dirty little habit. I have to read it.

However, didn't the NY Times, back when it was respected, have a motto about being the first to get it right and not just the first to get the story? The fact that so many people are writing in letters proclaiming that Miller and everyone else should be fired, or they should be rewarded or any of the other stuff that is being said is ludicrous. Perhaps they should look at themselves and their rushing to print before they know the whole story. Not everything has been discovered. I read a letter today that she was outed by the CIA in 1999. I didn't know that before today and if that is true the cat was out of the bag and this is a waste. Also, what is already known has not all been revealed. How anyone can make a case for anything yet is beyond me. It is the same rush to judgment they are accusing Miller of.

David J Horchak

***

Re: Coulter Admits She's 'Not a Big Fan of the First Amendment'

I am somewhat surprised that a writer, such as Ann Coulter, would not be a fan of the first amendment. However she joins an unfortunately growing list of people who are against most all rights. Read "Atlas Shrugged" to understand the consequences when that happens.

Jack Crawford
Silver Spring, Md.

***

In addition to the lack of outrage over the conduct of the government destroying an American citizen's ability to earn a living in a career of her choice, I've been wondering why the media is neglecting to mention the amount of tax dollars that have been lost due to the outing of Valerie Plame.

How much did it cost taxpayers to prop her up as an undercover agent over the years? And how much did we lose as a result of other agents being identified, here and abroad, because they may have been affiliated with her?

Also, how much has been spent on an investigation that obviously could have been avoided if the Bush gang had gotten honest at the start?

The sum of tax dollars lost due to this vindictive little plot is not chump change.

Anyone found to be involved in this fiasco should be forced to pay fines that equal the amount we lost.

Evelyn Pringle

Ed's Note: On Monday, The Washington Post reported that in its first 15 months, Fitzgerald's CIA leak investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office. In his Monday column, Washington Post's Dan Froomkin noted that this was far less than the cost of past independent counsel investigations, including that of Kenneth Starr.

***

On Citizen Journalism

Re: Steve Outing's Stop the Presses column, "Can 'Citizen Journalists' Really Produce Readable Content?"

I have published a semi-monthly newspaper for four years, and worked for the same for seven years prior to that. I have not had the benefit of any training in journalism, yet have succeeded in publishing a newspaper that meets high standards of quality.

That said, there are two big concerns with "citizen reporting" that haven't been adequately addressed -- reliability and liability.

As a small newspaper with limited resources, there's not a day goes by that I don't receive a submission of one type or another. Mostly it's "creative" writing, which I have coming out my ears. On rare occasions, however, I run into people who want to write "news."

Unfortunately, their definition of "news" differs from my own and, generally, is a thinly disguised editorial of whatever viewpoint they happen to hold.

If you run a story from a citizen journalist, do you know they accessed good and reliable sources? Do you know what kind of notes they took and are they available? Did they write their story from memory? Did they plagiarize? Do they have notes that would stand up in court, if need be? Do they quote people accurately? Are they making statements of fact based on some Web site they've seen? Do you need to pay for and/or provide fact checking on their information? Would they protect a source? Do you need to run the story by an attorney before printing? (I will add here the stories that cause problems are not usually the ones you expect to cause problems -- sometimes people get irate over things you might not consider to be very important.)

As a publisher, these are questions I have to consider when running a story sent to me by someone I don't know. To be truthful, it's not often I have the time or the money to make sure that what's been submitted is an accurate portrayal of the "story" that's been written about.

Maybe there's something I'm missing here and, if so, I'd love to hear from others about how they answer these questions when using "citizen journalists."

Trish Gannon
Publisher
The River Journal

***

Re: 'Dallas Morning News' Publisher Stands by Columnist in O'Reilly Feud

Sigh.

What you fail to point out in this article -- and I am left wondering WHY you did this -- is the factual inaccuracy of what she wrote. You even ran the quote "Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers..."

There are NO callers on The O'Reilly Factor. Yes, it's an opinion piece, but as we all know, ethics require even opinion pieces to present straight facts accurately.

Jeff Beliveau
San Diego, Calif.

***

Regarding Judith Miller's Letter of Defense

Seeing as Judith Miller still can't remember her other source (the one that first gave her Valerie Plame's name, since it wasn't Scooter Libby, she says), she has no credibility whatsoever.

Michael Babcock

***

Illegal Leaks

I don't know if any crime was committed in anybody making Valerie Plame's name public. I do know that crimes have been committed.

The last I heard, it was illegal to leak anything from a Grand Jury. Where is the outrage at the unnamed sources giving out information? In fact, if it is a crime, then those who receive it and publish it are guilty of a conspiracy! Those lawyers who leak the information should be outed and disciplined by the bar. Perhaps we need to force a few more journalists to reveal their sources, especially if their sources gave out bad information. Or, in the alternative, are we to ignore lying to the press and the violation of the civil rights of those who testify before the grand jury?

Story after story has been predicated on such assertions and poisoning the atmosphere to the point that if Fitzgerald doesn't indict anyone, then he will be condemned. Perhaps the New York Times and other journalists fail to remember that Judge Starr did not indict Hillary Clinton for lying under oath! In fact, the press ignored it for he most part.

But then -- there is no bias in the press, is there?

H. Michael Sarkisian
Sacramento, Calif.

***

Re: Bill's Author Says Some Bloggers Would be Protected by Shield Law

Every blogger who links to and discusses a news story, is merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Thus, those bloggers have never been under the gun.

The only bloggers who've ever been liable, have been bloggers who've been interviewing, investigating and reporting. And many bloggers do do that. Granted, most of them can't afford to do it full-time.

J. Ender
Phoenix, Ariz.