Talk:Judith Miller (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Is it fair to say that what Miller recieved for her "her false reporting on WMD claims" was only criticism? I've changed the article to read so. --12.202.240.9 07:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first paragraph of the second section, which nigh-duplicates a sentence from the introduction and again blames Judith Miller for the invasion of Iraq. Later in the article there are more coherent criticisms of what she wrote and which things were proved to be false. Boojum 14:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's annoying when contributors interject their personal politics into a Wiki article. Therefore this whole article should be considered not factual and disregarded. Others and I have tried to correct the text to present just the facts and leave the rhetoric out of it, but High on a tree insists on reversing the changes. Wiki admin needs to monitor this more closely so that only accurate and well-documented information is posted, not liberal propaganda. Vraiblonde 17 July 2005 1:54

others noted that 10 of the 12... refers to this slate article. regards, High on a tree 19:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


I took out "Miller's naive over-reliance on anonymous high-level sources, they say, biased her reporting and the testimony of the exiles has been called into serious doubt. Many have argued that the disastrous Iraq invasion might not have happened without Miller's reckless and misinformed reporting." from the intro. Blaming her for the invasion of Iraq seems a little excessive for an intro paragraph, as well as NPOV, even if "many" say it. Boojum 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Journalists are never above the law. However, they are absolutely entitled to their First Amendment Right. FREE JUDITH MILLER NOW!!! Kiwidude July 8, 2005 02:59 (UTC)

It has been proven elsewhere that Judith Miller is not a journalist but instead a mere propagandist in service to the Bush administration. Her propaganda has done nothing to promote the general welfare of the people of the United States, nor is her propaganda entitled to the protections offered by the first amendment regarding the abridgement of freedom of speech or of the press. END THE WAR NOW!!!

  • If we are to uphold the civil liberties that this nation guarantees, the government MUST uphold each citizens rights. Whether Ms. Miller's writing is propaganda is debatable.(most likely not.) Ms. Miller has but herself on the line to maintain our values of democracy and freedom. Clearly, without freedom of the press, which Ms. Miller is entitled to, there will be NO democracy. Unlike doctors and lawyer who have restrictions of confidentiality, journalists don't. They are protected by the first amendment and let it continue. Ms. Miller should be no exception. FREE JUDITH MILLER NOW!! Kiwidude 23:30, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
The First Amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this discussion, guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. That means freedom to say and print what one wishes. In practice, the courts have not interpreted even those freedoms as absolute. (For example, one can be punished for shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, revealing classified information, soliciting a crime, and publishing porn, and can be subjected to money damages for defamation.) Judith Miller isn't being punished for anything she said or printed. The First Amendment does not say anything about a reporter's right to conceal the names of people who talk to her. Nor is there any federal "reporter shield" statute (although many states have such laws). So Judith Miller has no federal right to keep silent when asked who illegally told her classified information. Nor, by the way, is this a case where a reporter keeps silent to protect a whistleblower who told her about government wrongdoing. This is apparently a case where a reporter is keeping silent to protect someone who smeared the wife of a whistleblower, thereby blowing her cover, committing a felony by revealing that information, wrecking the whistleblower's wife's career as an undercover CIA operative, possibly endangering her life and those of others she has worked with, and compromised our country's work in the area of interception and containment of weapons of mass destruction (which was Valerie Plame's area). The law does not and should not allow Judith Miller to withhold that information from the prosecutor. Krakatoa 01:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There have been many announcements/revealings of spies for the United States. Has that hurt our ability to gather intelligence NO! The situation with Ms. Miller has no impact.
You've got to be kidding me. Blowing the cover of covert operatives doesn't damage the ability of the US to gather intelligence? Please. At the absolute minimum, it requires a covert operative to move to non-covert operations, a new covert operative to be trained to take her place, and a new network of sources to be built from scratch. At worst, it can permanently derail investigations of vital national security importance. If I had my way, everyone involved in leaking this information or covering for the leakers, including Miller, would be indicted for treason. And in all cases I would seek the death penalty. Redxiv 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV way of asking "why?"

Here's the question that I suggested remained unanswered after her release. It was deleted as POV for being an "op-ed". I'm not just responding by reverting but asking here, how to express the question "why" neutrally? A more detailed appearance of the same question appears in the New York Post editorial of October 1, 2005:

After 85 days in jail for refusing to identify a source before a grand jury and to turn over her notes to a federal prosecutor investigating the Valerie Plame case, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was set free — and did exactly that on Friday.
There were conditions, of course: Her source, identified as Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, personally assured her she was no longer bound by their agreement of confidentiality.
Moreover, the notes she handed over were "edited." And the prosecutor agreed to limit the scope of his questioning.
But the end of this affair raises more questions than it answers.
Was all the hoopla really necessary?

patsw 22:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Add Washington Post's Dan Froomkin to the list of peers of Judith Miller asking "Why?" patsw 00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Add the Powerline blog to the list of people asking "Why?" At this web site they have images of letters from the principals including Libby, Tate, and Abrams. patsw 03:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Add the Columbia Jorunalism Review to the list asking "Why?"

[edit] Qaddafi, the victim of a Judith Miller defamation

It has been alleged that in 1986 Miller defamed dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, widely viewed as having been a major sponsor of terror, in articles she wrote on Libya, allegedly written under the auspices of Admiral John Poindexter of the Reagan administration.

Who made the allegation? What facts are behind this allegation? Verify or rm. patsw 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second Grand Jury Appearance

My first update of Miller's second grand jury appearance. I'm going to update this article more fully later this morning after I read most recent sources.--FloNight 13:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She's Toast

Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, Judy Miller was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers.

It's been reported over and over by international news sources that Judith Miller is a shameless war monger. It takes the NY Times so many years to deal with it. ... After the death of tens of thousands Iraqi people and some U.S. soldiers. Judith Miller is among one of the war criminals and that's now for sure. Jayson Blair was simply nothing if you compare the damages. -- Toytoy 13:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

- No need to kick someone when they are down. Does anyone know if Audrey Gillan was the British reporter who served the same role as did Judy Miller? --JWSchmidt 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
No article for Audrey Gillan so far. -- Toytoy 01:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Audrey Gillan would like to be informed of how it was that she served the same role as Judith Millar? Evidence before slander, please.

  • I started an article for Audrey Gillan. When I asked about "the British reporter who served the same role as did Judy Miller," I was thinking about thier roles in reporting on topics such as the 2001 anthrax attacks and the Iraq war. --JWSchmidt 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All of the "Political Bickering" is destroying Wikipedia!

Wikipedia is supposed to be a online encyclopedia & not a political "sounding board"! Seems like when someone gets offended by what they hear on TV, they automatically look for that person on Wiki & post an opinion. Even though what they may state is true, it's not a "newsworthy" event. Over half of all listings for a politican or newsperson has a section named -Controversies-. Most of the time these so-called "Controversies" take up over 2/3rds of the entire listing for that person. In most cases they are of little or no real value because they were never really "newsworthy" events that made the major news media like CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC/MSMBC, BBC, FOX News, or the USA Today, but were just "Blog" statements! This is destroying Wiki as an encyclopedia as a source for information for "school age" kids. Knowone knows how the Judith Miller story will end.

I've tried in vain to correct & delete "opinionated" statements, but as soon as I did someone would say "I was posting SPAM" & change it back to the last post. Seems like there's a large group of people who have singled out Wiki to reflect their opinions. It's impossible for the management of Wikipedia to monitor the thousands of revisions that take place everyday. Could we just stick to the "relative facts" & watch our language. Remember, any 5 year old could access the words you post!!!! If you have a "Political Statement"...........save it for the "Blogs"!!!
Actually, all of the political bickering is making the political pages a mess... the rest of Wikipedia is just fine. Yelling about it isn't going to do any good... only a few are going to hear you and only a few of those are going to care... and then twice as many new people are going to join the next day and take up the same fight. These pages are going to be battle-grounds. It is an unavoidable fact with the current political polarization, 'news' reports seemingly from different realities, and fast growing popularity of Wikipedia. My suggestion is to go edit something else and stop back to the political issues once they have calmed down. Some kind of un-removable 'this page is a partisan battleground' tag might also be called for to let the general public know that certain pages just aren't reliable / encyclopedic. In six months Judith Miller will likely have faded back into obscurity and the page can be set right. --CBDunkerson 10:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anthrax hoax victim

Apparently Miller was the only major media reporter to receive a fake anthrax letter in the fall of 2001. Real anthrax was sent to the National Enquirer, the New York Post, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, and the Senate offices of Democrats Daschle and Leahy. But fake anthrax was sent to Judith Miller — and apparently only her. Despite what is alleged in her entry, I have been unable to verify that any other major media outlet or journalist was a victim of an anthrax hoax in 2001. Isn't the proof in the reporting? Can anyone point me to another hoax of the time, or any prosecutions for the other (supposed) fake anthrax attacks on reporters or news outlets? Sandover 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the copy accordingly, and have squared Miller's entry with what is on anthrax hoax. Again, if anyone can offer any verification of other anthrax hoax victims working in the media in the fall of 2001, by all means, post them. I have looked and looked. Sandover 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandover, this article may be of interest to you. It suggests that Dick Cheney's mansion received a "mysterious letter" at roughly the same time. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11436302/site/newsweek/ Other articles mention that Cheney's staff, which presumably would include Judy Miller's friend Scooter Libby, began taking Cipro on September 11. Sofa King Monday, 2006-09-25 T 23:13 UTC

I added mention of Miller's pre-September 11 anthrax reporting, specifically an article she co-authored on September 4, 2001. There were other Miller-authored articles on bioweapons published in the NYT at roughly the same time, but regrettably the hoax mail makes a search for Miller's pre-attack reporting on bioweapons somewhat difficult. Sofa King Monday, 2006-09-25 T 22:40 UTC

[edit] What did Judith Miller want to quash?

On May 26, 2006, Judge Walton ruled on the motion including "For the reasons discussed above, this Court will grant reporter Judith Miller’s motion to quash...". This seems like it's significant. Perhaps there could be a section on the legal issues in the Grand Jury investigation here. Specifically, what it was that Miller requested to be quashed and why. Jeff Carr 01:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that was Libby's lawyers' request for her datebook, which the judge denied. I've added broad summary material only, mostly of her account in the New York Times last October.[1] Sandover 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalistic rights and responsibilities

The Miller case is cited by leftist groups as the primary reason for placinc the U.S. relatively low on a press freedom index (see Reporters Without Frontiers). Apparently reporting includes passing sensitive or secret security information to government enemies - which would be called spying in any other context.

Also, is there some law or constitutional principle that gives reporters the same rights (or duties) as priests and lawyers, to hide information about law-breaking? Can a reporter, for example, say, "I know who murdered John Doe but I won't tell anyone!" and then refuse to testify before a court or a grand jury? "He only told me because I promised not to tell anyone." Is this a valid defense?

If this is covered in a press freedom or confidential source article, then I apologize for belaboring the obvious. --Uncle Ed 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither the Constitution nor federal law grant reporters any legal right to conceal their sources from the courts. If subpoenaed, a reporter can and will be jailed if they refuse to reveal information that's pertinent to the case. As happened with Miller. In state courts, that's not always the case, as some states do have "reporter shield" laws. But in federal courts, nope. It's not a legal option. 71.203.209.0 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/d/Talk%7EJudith_Miller_%28journalist%29_1176.html"