[Marxism] Fw: New York Times apologia for Judith Miller

["Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I got this lame reply from the New York Times' new "public editor" in
response to my comments on Times reporter Judith Miller's peddling of
disinformation for the Bush/Chalabi gang. Note executive editor Keller's
attempt to portray criticism of Miller's propaganda work as
"conventional wisdom," and to claim for himself the role of "skeptic."
Keller sees no "prima facie case for recanting or repudiating the
stories" presumably because he believes the Times merely
relayed information from "official sources" to the public, without
endorsing the WMD claims. That's the self-serving excuse the mainstream
US media use when faced with the charge they act as de facto state
propaganda channels. For the Times, to admit that reportage like
Miller's was "insufficiently skeptical" would be to adopt the fringey,
unacceptable notion that their pages are routinely filled with official
lies.

Stuart

----- Original Message -----
From: "Public" <public@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Stuart Lawrence" <swl27@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Judith Miller


Dear Mr. Lawrence,

I raised your point with executive editor Bill Keller, and he has
authorized me to share his comments with you:

         "I followed the WMD controversy at a bit of a distance before I
moved into this job. When I learned I'd become executive editor I went
back
and re-read the coverage -- and the criticism, which had acquired the
power
of passionate conventional wisdom. (A fair amount of the mail on this
subject seemed to me to come from people who had not actually read the
coverage, but had heard about it on the cyber-grapevine.) My survey of
the
material left me with two conclusions.
         First, I did not see a prima facie case for recanting or
repudiating the stories. The brief against the coverage was that it was
insufficiently skeptical, but that is an easier claim to make in
hindsight
than in context. (By context I mean such things as, what others were
writing at the time, what role editors played in handling and presenting
the stories, how credible the sources were, etc.)
         Second, lacking prima facie evidence, opening a docket and
litigating the claims against the coverage was likely to consume more of
my
attention than I was willing to invest. I decided that, in the absence
of
more persuasive complaints than I have seen so far, I would base my
assessment of Judy's work on what she did on my watch.
         My experience of Judy, most extensively when I was managing
editor, is that she is a smart, well-sourced, industrious and fearless
reporter with a keen instinct for news, and an appetite for dauntingly
hard
subjects -- advanced weapons, terrorism, Middle East politics, etc. Her
early coverage of Osama bin Laden was uniquely foresighted before 9/11,
and
was at least partly responsible for one of our Pulitzers. Like many
aggressive reporters, particularly reporters who deal with contentious
subjects, she has sometimes stepped on toes, but that is hardly grounds
for
rebuke. That was my assessment of Judy when I worked with her before,
and
nothing she has published in the paper since I became executive editor
has
caused me to think less of her."

         Thanks for writing,

         Daniel Okrent
         Public Editor


At 04:33 PM 12/6/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>My confidence in the Times' reporting on the issue of weapons
>proliferation, and particularly on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
>is virtually nil because of Judith Miller's continued assignment to
>these stories. It became clear some time ago that Ms. Miller had acted
>as a credulous and eager conduit for disinformation supplied by U.S.
>officials and by Ahmed Chalabi. This presents a far more serious
>problem with the Times' credibility than the actions of Jayson Blair.
>The very least you could do would be to devote several of your early
>columns to this concern, one that I know is widely shared among readers
>of your newspaper.
>
>Stuart Lawrence
>Ithaca, NY
>swl27@xxxxxxxxxxx

Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
N.B.: Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise attributed, are
solely
my own




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism