Amy Smithson and Judith Miller's credibility gap

Judith Miller's entire justification for going to jail is that if a reporter ever reveals a source, then no future source would ever be able to trust her again. It's the one strike & you're out rule.

Which makes the following tale so incredibly damning:

But when there is trouble, it appears she's more than happy to pass around the responsibility. One incident that still rankles happened last April, when Miller co-bylined a story with Douglas Jehl on the WMD search that included a quote from Amy Smithson, an analyst formerly at the Henry L. Stimson Center. A day after it appeared, the Times learned that the quote was deeply problematic. To begin with, it had been supplied to Miller in an e-mail that began, "Briefly and on background"--a condition that Miller had flatly broken by naming her source. Miller committed a further offense by paraphrasing the quote and distorting Smithson's analysis. One person who viewed the e-mail says that it attributed views to Smithson that she clearly didn't hold. An embarrassing correction ensued. And while the offense had been entirely Miller's, there was nothing in the correction indicating Jehl's innocence.

The story is also mentioned in this 2003 Editor & Publisher article.

If there's a distinction here--is compelled revelation considered somehow worse than voluntary revelation? was Smithson explicitly promised anonymity or did she just assume it? can you be come a "born-again trusted reporter"?--then we need to know it. Otherwise, there's no reason why this incident shouldn't have been in paragraph one of every single story & editorial that covered Miller's heroism. Because it seems to me she already blew her wad a couple of years ago, and any source who expected protection by her was playing a fool's game.

The Smithson story seems to annihilate the entire basis of Miller's self-justification.  Why hasn't it at least been pointed to in any media stories I can find?

•  follow up Qs

  I'm a little curious about Judith Miller's cheering section and this case.

  If outing a source is a "death penalty" offense for journalists, should Miller already be out of the game?

  And if sources still talked to her after she screwed one source, then isn't it sorta a red herring argument to say outing her source will end her career as a journalist?

  by Carl Nyberg on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:13:19 AM PDT

  •  From debates I've had,

    they believe that the changes in the law (which seem slight to me) that resulted in Miller's jailed will result in a net loss to the journalistic profession.

    Would be true if Miller were anything resembling a journalist, or if her justifications were anything but glaringly disingenuous.  

    by GN1927 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:20:11 PM PDT

•  What does

  "on background" mean? Is that lingo? It simply looks like a description of the info, not a caall for anonymity.

  by Earl on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:15:06 AM PDT

  •  It means "Don't say it was me!"

    According to Wikipedia, "background is a term used by some journalists to describe a communication between a source and a journalist, where the journalist does not identify the source, but repeats the information the source has provided."

    It also says "Some journalists will not accept information "on background" or even "off the record" as they feel it compromises them, or may be intended to mislead them."

    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

    by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:20:43 AM PDT

    •  Thank you much

      for he quick reply.
      

      by Earl on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:22:40 AM PDT

  •  On background...

    ...is supposed to mean: for the reporter's information only - not to be quoted even anonymously.  At least that's the way I understood it when I was in the biz.

    by chuckvw on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:23:30 AM PDT

    •  either way, Judy violated it

      So how come we haven't seen anything about it, even from the big bloggers?

      by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

      •  pretty obscure

        plus it was long time ago. Kinda hard to remember everything.

        But this is great. So now Judith Miller is hypocritical too.

        by fugue on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:28:35 AM PDT

        •  not about Miller's hypocrisy

          I mean, we already know she is a big ole hypocrite.  It's about her defenders in the press (and some bloggers too) who seem to think that her stand is "principled" but haven't confronted this question.

          When her source came looking for anonymity, she was no longer an anonymity virgin.  Ergo, the entire basis of her claim for needing to maintain her bone fides goes out the window, and their defense of her rings completely hollow.

          by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:32:38 AM PDT

      •  Big time

        ...and then she changed the quote to suit her own purposes.  Despicable!

        by chuckvw on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

    •  That is to say...

      "Here's the story.  You go out and source it, because I never told you about it."

      by chuckvw on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:25:40 AM PDT

•  bottom line

  It seems to me the bottom line is that Miller won't give up the source not because she "can't" but because she "doesn't feel like it in this particular case."  That's a major difference and one that should derail her little martyrdom act.

  Anyway, why didn't she write an article based on her information?  If she was given goods this hot (whether "CIA agent corrupts process" or "Administration tries to discredit Wilson by outing wife") it seems ludicrious that she'd avoid doing a story on it, no?

  by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

•  yet more evidence

  Miller's career was not as a journalist, but as a propagandist.

  by teresab on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:58:46 AM PDT

  •  In a just world

    The Judith Miller Story would be fast-tracked through the studio system.  Between the "mattress" nickname, the friendship with Feith & other neocons, the book with Mylroie, and the supposed fake-Anthrax attack, there's a huge, glamorous, seedy story to be told.

    Judy: Time to do a tell-all book.  I promise I'll buy multiple copies, if you promise to tell the whole truth.  For once.

    by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:10:42 PM PDT

•  Totally in character for Miller,

  from what I've read.  

  This goes to (what I think is) the basic issue of the Miller case: she stands in direct contravention to the basic principles that justified any form of journalistic privilege, which is the free flow of information to the public, particularly when those in power are attempting cover-ups.

  Miller has no principle; Miller's not in jail because of any pressing respect for the first amendment.  

  Recommended.

  by GN1927 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:16:46 PM PDT

  •  Thanks!

    So the real question - purely speculative at this point - is Who is she trying to protect?

    My guess is that it's the person she cares most about in the world - Judith Miller.  I think she's in on the whole thing.  I think that revealing her notes would mean revealing her complicity in far more than just the Plame outing, but in the entire Iraq debacle itself.

    by jakester on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:22:12 PM PDT