There are a number of e-mails with questions and I'll try to note them below. If someone is quoted, they've given permission. If others asked the same question but didn't give permission to be quoted, they may or may not be noted.

Referring to Tuesday's morning post, Bryan asks what is the link to the story from The Third Estate Sunday Review? Bryan's referring to this:

But when the paper pushes this as "big news," it does have the effect of reminding many Americans of why they don't trust Miller and, honestly, don't like her. The Third Estate Sunday Review had a suggestion awhile back (I'll provide the link later tonight, I'm rushing, sorry) that if the Times truly wanted to help Miller avoid jail time, the answer was simple: assign some reporters to the Plame story and break the news on who leaked her name to the press.

Tuesday evening, I was feeling very sick and honestly forgot about it. So thanks for reminding me, Bryan. I called Jim and he couldn't remember where it was at The Third Estate Sunday Review so I searched (and searched).

It was The Third Estate Sunday Review. From Feb. 20th, "The Big News of the Week: According to TNYT it was Judy Miller:"

To what won't this paper stoop to protect their little Judy Miller?
(Someone should have chosen a more flattering picture for the article -- Miller's chins are more frightening from the side and rolling over her turtleneck sweater.)
Does the paper feel any sense of responsibility?
The answer has been obvious and we suggested it some time ago. You put your reporters on the story of who outed Valerie Plame (not on writing mash notes to Judy) and let them find out who outed Plame. You print that story and Miller doesn't have to go to jail.We noted two weeks ago that this wasn't a good time for The Times to be pressing this issue in a court of law. We aren't at all surprised with the judges' verdict. Which isn't to say that we support it. It is to say that the press (including The Times) has done a s**t-poor job for some time now so expecting America to rise to the defense of the press is expecting a bit much. And expecting a favorable judicial climate when the Bully Boy has declared war on the press for four years now (while The Times has largely remained silent) indicates the people behind the paper left the reality based community on the last train to Clarksville sometime ago.

I'll try to put the link in the post from Tuesday within the next twenty-four hours.

My response to Elizabeth's questions appear to have confused at least two members.

I'll try to clarify.

The New York Times takes (or used to take) great lengths to avoid being self-referential. To front line the Supreme Court not taking a case involving Miller at a time when other cases weren't taken (many cases are granted cert each Court session) was a little too "Look at us!" for my personal taste. Judith Miller is not the most pressing issue in America and it didn't belong on the front page. (An editorial appeared on it the same day. Though I wouldn't have critiqued the editorial, if I'd seen it when doing the morning post on this, I would've noted it.)

At a time when they refuse to throw the weight of the paper behind most issues, it's rather sad that the three issues that've been willing to flood the zone on in the last eight months were:

1) the tsunami
2) Judith Miller
3) the death pagent on the Pope

Only the first was worthy of flood the zone coverage.

The Times wants to remain silent on Miller's reporting. The mea culpa never named her. They've refused to go back and examine her reporting to correct the public record. But on the issue of "Judy didn't write about Valerie Plame!" they want to beat their chests and wear the hair shirts. Repeatedly.

The the Court refused to grant cert on a case, any case, is rarely front page news. What we saw was the Times use their name, space and image (such as it is) to attempt to turn this into a major story with the storyline being (yet again) "Poor Judy."

If Miller & the front page don't mix (and they don't) that has a lot to do with the reporting. That's Miller's own reporting which has yet to be corrected and the paper's own refusal to seriously address the outing of Plame.

It's all rather strange when you realize that the retaliation (the outing of Plame) comes as a result of an op-ed Joseph Wilson penned for . . . the Times. But they've not been interested in the story. David Corn owned the story early on (Corn is, of course, with The Nation). That was partly due (as I'm sure he'd state himself -- and I believe he already has) to the fact that mainstream press wasn't interested. They shrugged their shoulders. Corn hunted down (and continues to) developments that the mainstream isn't interested in. When did the Times become interested? When Judy Miller was expected to name her source.

Stories since then have treated Plame as a sidebar and made Miller the focus (Matt Cooper is not a co-focus, he comes off as an afterthought).

Poynter's Romenesko has a letter ("Why not name Libby?" 6/28/2005 1:05:20 PM)

From SUSAN STABLEY, reporter, South Florida Business Journal:
I don't understand why, in all the recent articles about Miller-Cooper-Novak and the Plame case, no one states the name of the leaker. The man who revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, at least, according to Cooper.
Cooper was the speaker at the recent SPJ awards in South Florida. He told a room full of reporters that he revealed his source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- after Libby released him from his obligation to protect his identity. The Washington Post reported the identity of Cooper's source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- in August 2004. Cooper told us at the SPJ event that his current legal crisis had to do with a follow-up subpoena from investigators who were fishing for all his notes.
[. . .]

Shouldn't that be in the Times' coverage?

Apparently not because it's not part of "poor Judy." It doesn't portray her as brave.

Is she being brave? Matthew Rothschild thinks she is.

Others think she's being stupid to risk a ruling at a time when the court system isn't looking favorably on journalism. Still others think she has no right to not name her "source."

Rothschild's argument is that Miller, as a journalist, must be able to protect her source on this.
Those who don't think she has a right to protect her source argue that someone committing a crime and one that you didn't even write about isn't a "source." The press isn't a priest (though some might see themselves as such). We've covered that here before.

Let's use Scoots Libby. Let's say that Scoots robs a bank and tells Miller about it. She writes a story on it. A month or two later, in conversation, Scoots says he's burned down a building the week prior. Miller doesn't write on that.

Because Scoots was a source on one story, Scoots now has blanket immunity? Miller's not a priest. You can't go to her and confess crimes and get absolution. If she's not writing about it,
people disagree over whether or not a source on a previous story can be protected in another story when the source has broken the law.

We've made the point here repeatedly that in writing that column Novak didn't commit a crime. And he didn't. The law doesn't cover him. We've never used the word "treason" to describe Novak's actions. In addition, Ty's argued, rightly, that when we use terms like "treason" (punishable by death) on the outing of a CIA agent, we're making it that much more difficult for a CIA agent to ever be outed and that's not really a position that the left traditionally holds.

We've stated here that Novak needs to address the issue. (And compared him to Agnes in Moliere's The School for Wives.) But we've not bought the argument that "once a source, always a source" is one to make in the current legal climate. If the Times had flooded the zone, then or now, on Valerie Plame, Miller wouldn't be facing her current jail time. They want to turn into a First Amendment case and not everyone's buying it as such. (Besides Rothschild, Rick MacArthur of Harper's does see it as such. Links to both's opinions have been provided at this site.)

It's surprising that the Times, of all papers, hasn't take up the cause of a CIA agent. But they haven't take up Plame's cause, they've made it all about poor Judy. This at a time when most people don't feel a great deal of sympathy to her, at a time when the courts aren't looking favorably on established journalistic rights and at a time when there is a huge split amongst journalists as to whether or not Miller's refusal to name who whispered the name to her qualifies as a First Amendment issue.

At a time when the paper's not too concerned with the death of journalists in Iraq, it's rather embarrassing that they throw out their own standards (to avoid being self-referential) and pretend that Judith Miller's legal problems are front page news.

1) Judy Miller is not Michael Jackson. She's not that widely known.
2) Those who do know the byline are split on her reporting.
3) She's facing jail time for an issue that the Times refuses to address.
4) Her case was denied cert which was hardly that surprising and hardly worthy of the front page.

Those were the points I attempted to make. Hope that clears it up.

There's also the issue of one of Elizabeth's questions which was, if it's not news, why does it get attention outside the Times? She was referring to Democracy Now! and they were debating the issues involved (or not involved) in the case. The Times hasn't done that (an probably won't -- you can't push Miller's side and also offer up the nagging doubts). I'd said I'd think about it in terms of it appearing here yesterday and I did think about it.

We critique the main section. Miller wasn't a front page story this week but she was turned into one. Insider baseball is a term that comes to mind. Since we critique the paper, I think it was correct to note it here. (I'll leave it to others to determine whether it was effectively addressed here.)

Four members (none said "quote me" and none are people such as Wally who's offered that any comment, any time can be quoted unless noted otherwise in the e-mail in question) wondered about the disclosure issue re: this afternoon's entry.

I don't note Perot here. I'm not a fan of the man or the family. A friend, who briefly was involved with H. Ross Jr., phoned today about that post after it went up. She cautioned that I might have stated here at some point (because I've stated it to friends) that Dems could use a little of the graphs and charts to make points that they too often assume everyone grasps. But part of the "do I want to disclose" was to do with her brief relationship with that family. I don't care for them and that says about all that needs to be said there.

Other disclosure issues go to the poll that Somerby cited. Bob Somerby rightly notes that it's the only statistical evidence there is. The sample size is too small for me to see it as representative of the nation. That's based on poli sci courses and covered here when noting polls by the Times.

And there were seven paragraphs after the above one that are now being deleted. I may or may not have worked on that polling. I'm getting two different answers from two different people. So the thing to do is disqualify myself from commenting. (Note, I did do some work for a paper, not the New York Times, for the 1992 election. In both cases, I was "paid" technically in that checks were cut. However, I never cashed any checks because both instances were favors for friends.)

And for those wondering "Where are the evening entries!" . . . You're right to wonder. I thought the matter was decided when one friend returned my phone call and was pulling together comments/opinions on the polling cited by Somerby. Then I got the second call. At which point, I went out to try to figure out what to do.

Since I'm not able to say one way or another, I'll just disqualify myself from comments on that poll.

And post this post.

Sorry for the delays.

And just remembered that Lynda e-mailed to say how much she enjoyed the BuzzFlash interview with Jonathan Adelstein which I'd promised to quote from tonight.

First let's note the intro because BuzzFlash is calling for some action:

Jonathan S. Adelstein, one of two pro-consumer Federal Communications Commissioners (the other is Michael Copps), spoke with BuzzFlash on June 13th, the day the Supreme Court okayed Congress' override of the Michael Powell move to further deregulate big media [US high court declines media ownership challenges (Reuters)]. Adelstein and Copps are heroically trying to hold off the Karl Rove effort to more fully control the media in Stalinesque fashion, turning the entire media, including PBS and NPR, into FOX News clones. Nothing is more important to the GOP radical zealots than controlling the media message. They can only govern by suppressing the truth and replacing it with falsehoods. They rule by deception. If the media turned against them, they would be plea bargaining for shorter prison time.
So, Adelstein and Copps need your help. Contact information for the FCC is here: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html. You need to let them know how you feel about pending FCC regulations. Nothing is more important than who controls the messaging in America. The Republicans know this -- and they rule by smoke and mirrors as a result. Don't let them get away with further big corporate GOP media control. If it gets any worse, you might as well read issues of Pravda from the '50s.

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

BuzzFlash: In some of the material handed out by "Free Press," the point was made that these are public airwaves that the FCC regulates. And yet if we take a station like ABC or CBS, the public is really not getting any significant money in return. Those stations are for-profit. This is a free enterprise society. In other words, they're public airwaves, but they're given to private parties. Is there any way for the public to get remuneration for the use of public airwaves?
Jonathan S. Adelstein: Well, the current law is that all broadcast frequencies are given out for free. It would take an act of Congress to require any return to the public in terms of revenues. But right now, the compact that's always existed has been that in exchange for free use of the public airwaves, the broadcasters would serve the public interest, would provide things that were responsive to the concerns of the communities that they serve. As we've gotten away from those public interest requirements -- and the FCC has increasingly watered them down to the point where they’re almost nonexistent -- the public gets the worst of both worlds. They don't get anything in return for the use of the airwaves in terms of being compensated or in terms of getting the kind of public interest programming that would justify such a giveaway.
BuzzFlash: Under the Reagan Administration, the requirements of the fairness doctrine were removed, so now we have right-wing media owners editorializing for the Republican Party and censoring programs that they think might be harmful to the current administration. There's no fairness there.
Jonathan S. Adelstein: That's why it's so important that we not loosen the media ownership rules. The last remaining bulwark against the domination of one viewpoint on the airwaves, be it from the left or the right, is that there be a diversity of viewpoints expressed, and that there are many different options for the public to draw from in terms of owners of the media outlets, then hopefully people can get the information they need to make up their own minds, rather than being disproportionately influenced by a handful of giants that might dominate the discourse in any given community.

A note on BuzzFlash's first question (first question above) because Eddie, Ryan and Lloyd have raised an issue in e-mails (and I'm trying to find out information on it, sorry for the delay). Adelstein correctly points out that the broadcast frequencies were given out for free. It is also true that PBS (among others) is being encouraged to sell those frequencies. This will generate a great deal of monies for the people selling the lic. but should that be their money? That's a point Eddie, Ryan and Lloyd are raising. (And it's a good point.)

But the other issue they're raising, and they're focusing on PBS, is something I'm confused on so if anyone has a resource or wants to take a crack at it, feel free. When the digital upgrade is done what does that mean? Does it mean that people will have to have cable to watch, to focus on PBS, the Public Broadcasting System? If so, that's not very public (as Eddie points out).

I'm not "up" on this issue at all and the three of them all wrote yesterday and today. I do know that changes are starting next month with regards to some TVs. If anyone has a resource or wants to weigh in, please note that. (And if you're a visitor, when you weigh in, you need to note in your e-mail what you are to be quoted on and what we should refer to you by.)

I am trying to track down answers on this and hopefully will have something by tomorrow.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.  And yes, I'm behind in transferring posts.}

The Republican's continued war on the judiciary is addressed in "Republican Lawmakers Fire Back at Judiciary" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in this morning's New York Times:

Stepping up their assault on the federal judiciary, Congressional Republicans announced efforts on Thursday directed at overturning two recent Supreme Court decisions, one that allowed government to claim private property for economic development and another that stripped Kentucky courthouses of the Ten Commandments.
"This Congress is just not going to sit by and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions," said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House Republican leader.

Which causes Rachel to wonder, "Why do they hate America!" (Rachel's humorously applying the fright-wing's own "logic" back at them.)

Joan notes that Edmund L. Andrews' "Senate Approves Free Trade Pact" needs to be read in relation to another story in this morning's paper, Juan Forero's "Report Criticizes Labor Standards in Central America." From Forero's article:


The Labor Rights Fund concluded in nearly 400 pages that while there were some adequate labor laws in Central America, there were systematic barriers to enforcing those laws. Recordkeeping is shoddy, giving workers little chance to make claims against employers, the reports said, and sanctions for violations are weak.
The fund also found problems ranging from discrimination against labor organizers to inadequate measures against child labor. El Salvador, for instance, the study found that it was not uncommon for foreign companies to close shop and leave without paying workers. The study also noted a failure to maintain safety, citing two accidents at a textile plant in 2002 in which 560 workers were overcome by fumes in chlorine spills. The ensuing investigations were shoddy, the study found.
[. . .]
But after the reports were submitted in early 2004, the Labor Department held them in secrecy, preventing their release to Congress and forbidding the fund to publish them, Mr. Levin, the Michigan representative, said.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg's "Researcher's Appraisals of Commentators Are Released" was pointed out by Eddie. Ruth's addressing that in her Morning Edition Report (provided I can get it copied and pasted from her e-mail in time) so we'll just note this from Stolberg:

A researcher secretly retained by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to monitor liberal bias in public radio and television set his sights on several media personalities, including Bill Moyers, Tucker Carlson, Tavis Smiley, David Brancaccio and Diane Rehm, according to documents made public Thursday.
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, released 50 pages of what he called the "work product" of Fred Mann, a researcher who has been connected to conservative journalism centers and who was hired by the corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. Mr. Dorgan pronounced the work "a little nutty" and a sham.

Lonnie e-mails to note David S. Cloud and Carlotta Gall's "16 Bodies Recovered in Afghan Copter Crash:"

Nearly three days after a Chinook helicopter went down in heavy combat in eastern Afghanistan, American troops were able to reach the crash site and recovered the bodies of all 16 troops who were aboard, military officials said.
But Pentagon officials said Thursday that combat in the area was continuing and that commanders in Washington lacked complete information about troops who had been fighting insurgents in the vicinity when the helicopter crashed Tuesday.


For those wondering (like Marci), Isaiah's on vacation this week. There is a comic he e-mailed earlier this week and it will go up on Sunday. Since most members expect one of Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts to appear on Sunday, I've held it back. Isaiah may or may not have time for another. If he does, there will be more than one Sunday but there will be at least one.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

You knew it was coming. You knew it would be front paged. And in that regard, the New York Times doesn't let you down this morning:

With one of its reporters facing an imminent jail sentence, Time magazine said yesterday that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame.
The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the magazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller.

The above is from Adam Liptak's "Time Inc. to Yield Files on Sources, Relenting to U.S." in this morning's New York Times.

We warned you Thursday morning this was coming:

The issue of the corporation (Time's) is brought up in regards to whether or not they'll turn over the Cooper's notes is brought up. There's back and forth in the article, so let's provide context.
If history is any guide, Time Warner et al will not take a brave stand for the First Amendment in the face of a court order. They didn't require a court order to drop Ice-T's "Cop Killer" back in the nineties. (In one of the more idiotic business decisions, my opinion, the syngery conglomerate that can't get anything right cut off Warner Music. They no longer own it. However, it was owned in the nineties and it was the parent company bringing heat on the music division to dump "Cop Killer.") In addition Jimmy Iovine's skirmishes with Time Warner in the mid-nineties also indicate that free speech is not an issue near and dear to the whatever facsimile of a heart the corporation possesses."Context" (to use the article's term) would indicate that there's not much chance Time will stand strong in support of the First Amendment. But informing readers of that historical "context" might prevent a "JUDY STANDS ALONE!" shocker in the coming days if/when Time does cave.

"JUDY STANDS ALONE!" Did we get there today? Why yes, we did. Note the following from Liptak's article:


Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times, was critical of Time. "We are deeply disappointed by Time Inc.'s decision to deliver the subpoenaed records," Mr. Sulzberger said. "We faced similar pressures in 1978 when both our reporter Myron Farber and the Times Company were held in contempt of court for refusing to provide the names of confidential sources. Mr. Farber served 40 days in jail and we were forced to pay significant fines.
"Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time."

"Poor Judy" coverage isn't working. Rebecca and I discussed this on the phone yesterday and she's noted some thoughts we had on the topic. From Rebecca's post:

the new york times needs to handle it differently as well. you can't humanize judith miller. it backfires on you. make her iconic. start making the issue the freedom of the press. use that space to give a historical essay on the freedom of the press. in fact, we think the paper should do a series of articles. not on the op-ed pages, not in editorials, as stories in the main section.
this isn't where they name check past press struggles, this is where they do a history. the thrust of the article is not 'poor judy!' but the freedom of the press. within those articles, the case is made repeatedly for the importance of a free press. judith miller is mentioned in some of them but it is in relation to the case.that's how the times gets behind this. not with yet another article about judy miller. no 1's buying it and they should have realized that a long time ago. if they're wanting to defend her, they need to do it via a news series on the press under attack in previous times.
they also need to grasp that not every 1 knows woodward & bernstein.
[. . .]
generations have come of age since watergate and earlier struggles are not well known to a great many people. the times would be doing a service to the public (and probably help stem the negative poll results) by making the case for a free press via an article or articles that informed readers of past battles and how they informed the public.

So do they do that this morning? No, they don't. They name check court battles. ""They" includes not only Liptak but also Sulzberger who name checks Farber. What were the issues in Myron Farber's court battle? What was at stake? Why does the case matter? Do they truly think tossing out a name that the general public doesn't know is in anyway helping Judith Miller?

Sulzberger needs to stop "helping" because as Liptak explains the case (again, Sulzberger merely name checks) it's not really one that's going to win people over to Miller's side:

Mr. Farber refused to supply his notes to a doctor on trial in New Jersey on charges that he killed patients by injecting them with curare. The doctor, Mario Jascalevich, was acquitted. Mr. Farber, now retired, recalled the efforts he and the paper had made to protect his notes, which reflected conversations with confidential sources.

The man was accused of killing patients. As you read on, you keep expecting to read "and the real killer was caught!" Doesn't happen. So the Times' big case here is that someone who may or may not have been guilty was acquitted because a reporter withheld notes. This is supposed to turn the tide on public opinion for Miller? This is being "helpful?"

The Times has bungled this from the start. They should have covered the outing but they stuck their heads in the sands. Once Miller was brought in by Patrick Fitzgerald, if they wanted to protect Miller, they should have immediately assigned a group of reporters to the case to figure out who did out Valerie Plame. They didn't do that. They're still not doing what they need to do.

I'm not a Miller fan (and Rebecca less so -- as she notes, I would like to see Miller avoid jail time but she, Rebecca, couldn't care one way or another). In twenty minutes we came up with a better game plan than the Times has had from day one.

The Times needs to sell this issue not as "we may be protecting someone who's guilty" (which is how they've sold it and how they sell it again today by bringing up Farber) but as a First Amendment case. You do that by getting the public on your side. To get the public on your side, you remind them of the history involved in the freedom of the press.

Not many will be swayed by a case where a doctor who may or may not have killed patients was aquitted. Quite the contrary, it's more likely to make readers think the Times is so out of it that they think their First Amendment principals override guilt and innocence. Polls consistently show an erosion in the public's trust towards the press. So while absolute First Amendment talk may be seen as brave, it's not helping Miller.

Now maybe everyone at the Times needs a break from the woman? I know readers (including myself) would enjoy a break from her constant grudge f**king of the UN coverage. But is her own paper trying to stab her in the back?

That's what the nonsense in this morning's paper does. Instead of calling up thoughts of how important a free press is to the nation, they want to waste time telling you that someone accused of mulitple murders was aquitted after a reporter refused to turn over his notes. They think that story will increase sympathy for Miller?

Bill Keller is infamous for his dismissal of bloggers as a "one man circle jerk" (and, again, let's hope he doesn't go to his grave being remembered for his use of the term "circle jerk"). What is the coverage on this but one long circle jerk?

Who is supposed to sway? Tales of person getting off on murder aren't going to woo support in this era where the more popular programs presume the guilt of the accused. (Link takes you to Ava and my review of CSI Miami.) Now as a philosophical debate among journalists, Farber's case might make a great starting point. Used to shore up support among an already jaded public, Farber's case is the last thing the Times needs to trot out.

The paper can't make the case on Miller. She's not sympathetic (and her efforts at being sympathetic backfire). When you can't argue the person, you argue the concept. (So keep Bumiller away from this story and assign real reporters who don't need to personalize each report.) What's the concept at stake here?

Whether or not the government has a right to know what the press discovered is the concept. That's what you punch in every day. That's what you offer historical examples on. That's what you educate the public about. The Times isn't doing that. Sulzberger (who is a friend of Miller's) was trying to be helpful. He failed. He failed miserably. Now maybe no one wants to tell "the boss" how to address the issue. That's fine if they're okay with Miller going to jail. But they've turned the paper over to this topic repeatedly and they've yet to figure out how to sell it to the public. Not a big surprise, the Times (outside the tsunami) hasn't had a great deal to proud of this year. (Individual reports that were successful have been noted here. I'd guess that's about one a day. Which may be grading the paper on a generous curve.)

But it's past time for the paper to call together an honest meeting on this topic and to not worry that Sulzberger or anyone's feelings might be hurt. They need to figure out the angle for this reporting (because they're not going to drop it). The angle is why a free press is important to the country. You don't argue that with acuittal's (unless you put into the story that the guilty person was eventually found). You don't argue that with "Poor Judy!" coverage.

She's sympathy-proof. Keller can rage about "arm chair media critics" all he wants, but he damn well knows the criticism of Miller. Acting as though it's not out there does no one a favor.
It's time they realized that Miller's support among the public (and not a great deal of people even know her name) is not huge. In fact, many people who know her byline know her as someone who's reporting is problematic (I'm being generous). To the public who's unaware of her, she's a reporter who won't hand over notes to the government.

Figure out how to sell the importance of not turning over information to the public and the Times could sway public opinion. That will mean realizing that those that didn't go to j-school (and some who did, see Rebecca's entry for my encounter with a journalism school graduate who'd didn't know the names Woodward & Bernstein and was a member of the working press!)
outnumber those who did and that to get their support for a free press, the paper needs to be hitting hard on why a free press is important.

I had an e-mail late last night from someone who said that no one at the paper seems to know what to do with this story. (The person had read Rebecca's entry.) It shows. It really, really shows. In each report, it shows.

Today we also get this name check, from Liptak, not Sulzberger:

The case represents the starkest confrontation between the press and the government since 1971, when the Supreme Court refused to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers. And legal experts said yesterday that they knew of no other instance in modern journalistic history in which a major news organization announced that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a government subpoena.

Liptak doesn't round it out (the way he did Sulzberger's case). 1971? Name checking the Pentagon Papers is supposed to make the case for Miller? That's thirty-four years ago (as always, check my math). Again, that might be stressed in j-schools (in some journalism schools) but the Times fails to grasp that for most people in public schools in the seventies and early eighties, Vietnam was a non-topic. Teachers didn't generally rush to get to that section of the history books. (My guess is that many avoided that section). The conflict divided the nation. We never got honest about exploring it and we never healed as a nation. (I'm speaking in general terms.) As Jane Fonda has frequently noted, we never seriously addressed how we got there. (In terms of films, Coming Home addressed the homefront, Platoon addressed the battle in Vietnam. Both were successful films. But the only moderately successful project dealing with how we got over there was HBO's version of A Bright and Shining Lie.)

So name checking the Pentagon Papers today was useless. Can a case be made for the Pentagon Papers? Absolutely, but to do that, you make the case, you don't rely on shout outs. And making the case means educating about why the case was important, not (wrongly) assuming that everyone knows the issues at the stakes.

Ideally, the paper should call an emergency meeting tomorrow and work like hell to get something in the Sunday paper. Forget the Saturday paper, too few read it. Put it on the front page of the Sunday paper, a perspective piece on the freedom of the press that looks at the issue historically. And hit on that every day leading up to Wednesday's court room appearance.

"But if we do that," someone might argue, "Fox 'News' will tear us apart!" You're probably right, they probably will. (Then again, they may take the pass that so many, other than David Corn, have taken on this case.) If they were to shoot it down, great. That's more talk about this. And the Times needs to raise the profile on this issue.

A front page historical series on the freedom of the press will also lead the mainstream to explore it. That means on Today, for instance, you'll get two guests. One will speak of the importance of a free press, the other will shoot down the idea. (The "balance" the mainstream press has so pushed bites them in the ass. It's poetic.) Doesn't matter, the issue is getting out there. As for any concern that the paper might be seen as self-focused, the reporting on this already has been. It's chosen it's path and with five days until Wednesday (check my math) it's way too late to worry about that.

Members who've been upset with my past remarks that Miller shouldn't go to jail have a right to their feelings. Rebecca and I discussed strategies yesterday and I didn't comment on it here. Didn't intend to even note Rebecca's entry unless a member asked for it to be highlighted. I assumed that the paper would be having similar discussions. Obviously, they didn't.

But for those members who are bothered by this entry, you've got a right to be. I won't say "get over it!" or tell you that you're wrong. I'm justifying this entry on my end with the handling of this topic is yet another indication of how out of touch the paper so often is. Hiring evangicals to write for the paper won't change that. Opening up divisions in "heartland" areas that voted for Bully Boy won't change that. An article by Felicity Barringer was praised on Sunday and we noted (Ava and I) that she walked you through the topic. Too often, the paper fails to do that. (It also fails to achieve the "balance" it strives for. But that's another issue.)

With the Miller coverage, the paper has dedicated itself to this topic. And they've done a very poor job. (Which goes beyond Liptak and it's a shame that he's the one stuck writing on this topic this week. It goes beyond him.) (And for all anyone knows, his drafts have included the very things that the Times should have been including and they've been dropped by someone other than Liptak.)

But if the Times can so majorly screw up coverage on an issue that they are so obviously vested in, it goes to bigger problems at the paper. Victor Navasky, in A Matter of Opinion, notes a job offer from the Times that came via bumping into someone on Martha's Vineyard. Bob Somerby would probably be able to build a strong argument out of that annecdote. I doubt (I could, as always, be wrong) that his take on it would be proof of "liberals!" It would, however, be proof of how a limited number of opinions exist at the Times. (That's not a slam at Navasky. And certainly not intended as one at Somerby either.) The paper is so busy running in its own circles, it really has trouble relating to people outside of them. Which is why Marcia can catch the obvious this week, that a report featured not one woman's voice as though the issues in Italy mattered only to males living in Italy, but an editor doesn't notice it. It's why the Times doesn't blink when it runs a trophy wife story in the Business pages (or the Sunday Magazine for that matter). We could go into this in depth but I'll just refer you to Gore Vidal's essays and note that on this topic, one the paper cares about, they're falling into old patterns that don't work.

If they want the public to care, they need to explain what is historically at stake. Thus far, they've failed to do that. This goes to larger problems at the Times and that's how I can justify this entry (and I could be wrong -- if you want to disagree, privately or to share with the community e-mail with your take on it -- and visitors need to note the policy that you're only quoted if you give your permission).

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

In this morning's New York Times, Neil A. Lewis reports on spineless Democrats who refuse to speak plain truths. As Lewis notes at the end of the article ("Guantanamo Thorny Issue for Democrats on Committee"):


Former interrogators interviewed for a recent article in The New York Times have said that psychologists and psychiatrists, acting as behavioral scientists, advised them on how to use weaknesses, like a fear of the dark, to press detainees into cooperating. The New England Journal of Medicine reported last week that interviews with doctors who set up the interrogations at Guantanamo had used a model of increasing stress on detainees rather than establishing rapport to elicit information.
General Hood, in his testimony, said it was important to remember that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were "dangerous men committed to harming Americans."

To build on the last paragraph, it's important to remember that some of these "dangerous men" included children not yet eighteen. It's equally important to rember that we've detained and detained with no charges. They aren't protected by Geneva or by our own laws. They exist in a grey area and the people who should be protecting them, our Congress (which includes the disappointing Dems in this morning's article), would rather play "Who's da bigger Patriot? I am!" instead of doing their damn job.

Let's drop back to Democracy Now! February 1st report "EXCLUSIVE: British Human Rights Lawyer Gareth Peirce Says Torture 'Is the Recipe for the Destruction' of International Human Rights:"

A federal judge ruled Monday that the military tribunals set up by the Pentagon to determine the status of men and women held at Guantanamo Bay are unconstitutional in nature since they don't allow detainees access to lawyers or to evidence against them.
More than 540 men and women from 42 countries are still being held at Guntanamo. The judge wrote the war-on-terror cannot "negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over two hundred years."
The ruling comes a week after four British citizens were released without charge from Guantanamo after nearly 3 years in custody. They are now suing the US government for tens of millions of dollars in damages. The four are: Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar.
On Democracy Now!, we have covered these cases extensively, particularly that of Moazzam Begg. He was detained in Pakistan in 2001 and was imprisoned without charge or trial in Guanatanmo after being transferred there from a base in Afghanistan. For nearly two years, he had no contact with fellow prisoners, denied access to daylight and kept in seclusion
In a 25-page testimony written while in solitary confinement, Begg accuses the US of threatening his family, killing his fellow detainees and interrogating him more than 250 times. The testimony was obtained by the London Independent. Begg said his interrogation included being shackled and dragged, having a "suffocating hood" placed on his head and being struck on the head several times.
Gareth Peirce is the attorney for Moazzam Begg as well as Richard Belmar. Peirce is one of the leading human rights lawyers in Britian. She represented the Birmingham Six and Guilford Four as well as the three other British citizens released from Guantanamo last year known as the "Tipton Three". Actress Emma Thompson played her character in the movie "In the Name of the Father."
This past weekend, I was in England and Ireland as part of the international "Exception to the Rulers" book tour. I had the rare opportunity to sit down with Gareth Peirce in her home for an extended conversation.

Now let's note one section of the report (picked at random, Congressional Democrats should read the transcript in full):

AMY GOODMAN: No, that's fine. We're not sound bite radio. So we really appreciate a full explanation like this. What was Moazzam Begg charged with?
GARETH PEIRCE: Oh, he is not charged with anything. He was tortured, and brutalized in wholly unlawful conditions for three years. He was living with his family, not clandestinely, in Pakistan. He was unlawfully captured by Americans with British complicity, and with Pakistani complicity, and taken to Bagram in Afghanistan, where he was held for a year, as he said in the one letter that came out from there without having seen the sun or the moon or the stars for an entire year, and brutalized and degraded and humiliated, and then taken to Guantanamo, where he was the only person we know of- there may be others that we don't know of-- but the only person we know of who was in complete isolation for two years. That may be because he witnessed the murder of two detainees in Bagram Air Base. And, perhaps, to keep that deep, dark secret for as long as possible, he was not kept with the others. He was kept in Guantanamo, without any natural light, in a tiny cell area where even exercise was without access to any other detainees. It's astounding to me that he has retained his intellect and his ability to articulate as extraordinarily as he has. He, one has to say, is a person with enormous reserves of strength and spiritual resources.

This is what goes on in the facility that Duncan Hunter's so impressed with. Dick Durbin caves and all the others with collapsable spines quickly follow.

They need to be ashamed of themselves. They need to be ashamed that they won't speak the truth and, as members of Congress, they need to be ashamed that as much as the issue has been addressed, it's been addressed by the courts and not by them. I hope Duncan Hunter's remarks are noted and remembered because this is a historical stain on our nation and later on, decades from now, there should not be any, "Oh well he didn't know." He knew or he should have known. He didn't do his job. And he's not the only one. Congress should be ashamed of themselves. Our press should be ashamed that with the exception of a few brave reporters (Amy Goodman, Jane Mayer with The New Yorker, Raymond Bonner with the New York Times among the few), most didn't want to really get into the "nitty gritty" of what went on.

That's why the general can pipe off at the end of the story that these are dangerous men who are determined to hurt America (or whatever lame b.s. he offered). He knows he won't be called on it by the press and he knows most American are unaware of the realities regarding Guantanamo. He knows whatever spin he offers will make it into reports unchallenged. As Public Enemy might say, it takes two Houses of cowards to keep us down.

Eric Schmitt leaves an important detail out of his "For First Time in Months, Army Meets Its Recruiting Goal." (By the way the Shirley e-mailed to point out that the Times corrected one factual error in their obit on In These Times founder James Weinstein. It was one of the errors noted in the gina & krista round-robin; however, it was not the only factual error. They've apparently still not caught the other. For members who get the gina & krista round-robin, the letter they scanned in as an attachment is about the error they've still not caught.) What's the detail missing from Schmitt's article?

The detail is one Michael pointed out yesterday at his site (Mikey Likes It!):

Also know that the figures haven't been released and can't be proven right. And realize that in June, one month after high school graduations, the military would be expected to do better than usual.The figures can't be checked and we need to remember that. But when they do come out we need to remember that they dropped the numbers. This isn't "Oh June just topped January!"
They have lowered the monthly goal and still weren't able to keep it. Now they say they did.
And what month was that?
June when high schoolers have just graduated.
You got some kids who do want to join and are just waiting to graduate. You also have some kids who've been phoned and phoned all year and they're out of high school and there's not a lot of jobs in this economy, tuition has gone up, so what are some kids going to do? Sign up.
Let's wait for the figures and let's wait to see if they can do anything similar next month.

The point Michael makes (he makes many) that isn't in Schmitt's article is the fact that if June's target goal was met, that's not "great" news because they've lowered the target goals for enlistment after repeatedly failing to meet them.

As Michael did, Schmitt notes the fact that we're dealing with the summer season re: high schoolers. But equally important to the story (my opinion) they met their target (if they did -- and Schmitt rightly notes the figures have yet to be released) only after lowering it.

(In fairness to Schmitt, his is a short article and he may have included the detail, one that needs to be in the story because it gives perspective to what's being trumpeted. If he did, it was deleted from the story by someone other than Schmitt. Possibly due to Bill Keller's desire for shorter stories. Exactly how far will he go to turn the Times into USA Today?)

Adam Liptak again covers the "poor Judy" case. Liptak or "Liptak" (if someone else is responsible for it) creates a howler with his (or "his") use of "context:"


Eight days after Mr. Wilson's article was published, Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist, reported that "two senior administration officials" had told him that Mr. Wilson's wife, Ms. Plame, was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Wilson has said the disclosure was payback for his criticism. Others have said that the disclosure put his criticism in context by suggesting that Mr. Wilson's trip was not a serious one but rather a nepotistic boondoggle.

Once again, laws broken by "administration officials" aren't the story. Valerie Plame's outing isn't the story. It's all about Judy though they tack on a little more about Matt Cooper. And rush, for balance, to offer what "others" (an apparently nameless group) "have said." (Yes, "others" have said that, "others" in the administartion among "others.") By the way, is Ted Olson on this case or not because the Times doesn't seem to know or else isn't keen on informing readers that he is. Perhaps he left the case?

From Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp ("Supreme Court Will Not Hear Miller/Cooper Case"):

Ted Olson, the former U.S. Solicitor General who is handling Cooper's defense, said last week he was hopeful, claiming, "we've given them very, very good reasons."

I suppose he could have left the case since E&P reported that on Monday. I don't think it's very likely but I supposed it could have happened.

Here's something else not in the article (I'm copying and pasting from last night's entry):

Poynter's Romenesko has a letter ("Why not name Libby?" 6/28/2005 1:05:20 PM) [:]
From SUSAN STABLEY, reporter, South Florida Business Journal:
I don't understand why, in all the recent articles about Miller-Cooper-Novak and the Plame case, no one states the name of the leaker. The man who revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, at least, according to Cooper.
Cooper was the speaker at the recent SPJ awards in South Florida. He told a room full of reporters that he revealed his source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- after Libby released him from his obligation to protect his identity. The Washington Post reported the identity of Cooper's source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney -- in August 2004. Cooper told us at the SPJ event that his current legal crisis had to do with a follow-up subpoena from investigators who were fishing for all his notes.[. . .]
Shouldn't that be in the Times' coverage?


Well, shouldn't it be? Especially when this statement is in today's reporting:

In an interview, Mr. Cooper expressed gratitude to his employer for fighting the case and said he hoped it would keep his secrets.

Is Susan Stabley mistaken? The Washington Post's article (by Carol D. Leonning) notes:

"Matt would have gone to jail if Libby didn't waive his right to confidentiality . . . and we would have fought all the way to the Supreme Court," said Time Managing Editor Jim Kelly. "Matt has been absolutely steadfast in his desire to protect anonymous sources."

(The Washington Post article makes no mention of remarks made at the SPJ awards.)

Not feeling the in-depth reporting this story has always required (but never gotten) is coming to us today.

The issue of the corporation (Time's) is brought up in regards to whether or not they'll turn over the Cooper's notes is brought up. There's back and forth in the article, so let's provide context.
If history is any guide, Time Warner et al will not take a brave stand for the First Amendment in the face of a court order. They didn't require a court order to drop Ice-T's "Cop Killer" back in the nineties. (In one of the more idiotic business decisions, my opinion, the syngery conglomerate that can't get anything right cut off Warner Music. They no longer own it. However, it was owned in the nineties and it was the parent company bringing heat on the music division to dump "Cop Killer.") In addition Jimmy Iovine's skirmishes with Time Warner in the mid-nineties also indicate that free speech is not an issue near and dear to the whatever facsimile of a heart the corporation possesses.

"Context" (to use the article's term) would indicate that there's not much chance Time will stand strong in support of the First Amendment. But informing readers of that historical "context" might prevent a "JUDY STANDS ALONE!" shocker in the coming days if/when Time does cave.

Douglas Jehl's handed the mop and told to clean up after Bumiller's print accident yesterday. Had Elisabeth Bumiller done the basic job reporting he might not have such a big mess to clean up. For those who missed one of the points I was making yesterday (and must have failed on this for some) Bumiller's reliance (repeatedly) on "friends say" was a problem. A problem the Times' own recent panel identified and one that was supposed to have been addressed. If that's still not clear to anyone singing the praises of someone doesn't require someone to go on "background" or "unnamed." Bumiller wasted time and space with "friends say" which falls into a category that the paper has repeatedly stated they are moving away from. Someone send the memo to Bumiller.

Jehl's "Bush to Create New Unit in F.B.I. for Intelligence" has a lot of ground to cover because Bumiller, the Elite Fluff Patrol squad leader, turned in a puff piece when she should have been doing some real reporting.

There's no excerpt to Jehl's piece because he's been left (by Bumiller) with the task of explaining what's going on, what it means and where Congress will come in. (Among other things.) (It's like trying to choose an excerpt from one of Bob Somerby's entries at The Daily Howler, it's all too important to just choose one section.)

Hopefully, the Times will address what these proposals mean point by point.

At Molly's request, we'll note David E. Sanger's "Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate All Its Own:"


So what happened to the applause?
When President Bush visits military bases, he invariably receives a foot-stomping, loud ovation at every applause line. At bases like Fort Bragg - the backdrop for his Tuesday night speech on Iraq - the clapping is often interspersed with calls of "Hoo-ah," the military's all-purpose, spirited response to, well, almost anything.
[. . .]
While the White House tried to explain the silence, Democrats were critical of Mr. Bush's use of the Sept. 11 attacks - comparing it to the administration's argument, before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. The independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks found no evidence of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's organization.

Molly did the excerpts above (from the Sanger article) in her e-mail.

The e-mail for this address is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

The loss of a military helicopter with 17 Americans aboard in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday comes at a time of growing insecurity here. For the first time since the United States overthrew the Taliban government three and a half years ago, Afghans say they are feeling uneasy about the future.
Violence has increased sharply in recent months, with a resurgent Taliban movement mounting daily attacks in southern Afghanistan, gangs kidnapping foreigners here in the capital and radical Islamists orchestrating violent demonstrations against the government and foreign-financed organizations.
The steady stream of violence has dealt a new blow to this still traumatized nation of 25 million. In dozens of interviews conducted in recent weeks around the country, Afghans voiced concern that things were not improving, and that the Taliban and other dangerous players were gaining strength.

The above is from Carlotta Gall's "Mood of Anxiety Engulfs Afghans as Violence Rises" in this morning's New York Times. If there's one story you read from the Times, this would be a good one to select. If you don't click on links, just be aware of it and note the excerpt above.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]