I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Well, we're still here--dammit!
The internet is mightier than the press!
The keyboard is mighter than the media!
...so something like that.
--ventura county, ca
"My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Let's cut out the middleman and let the government write the news. Does Miller think she is taking dictation, that she is the White House secretary? Seriously, why is she getting paid?
Just returned from my caucuse here in Washington and it was packed! sorry to be OT but it was really encouraging to see so many people in my rural county excited about getting a Dem in the white house.
OT: check out the successful U.S. subpoena of war protestors' records.
http://tinyurl.com/2djzw
Got them end-of-the-Weimar-Republic blues....
What Judith Miller did was ten times worse than anything Andrew Gilligan was accused of. Hell, as far as the Grey Lady's credibility is concerned, it was ten times worse than what Jason Blair did.
What amazes me is that they aren't challenging the most bizarre of lies, such as Woolsey saying last week that there were no UN inspections since 1994. It would be laughable that the administration and its lackeys think they can get away with that, except that they can and are getting away with it. Only blogs seem to be spreading the facts in a determined and consistent manner, but bloggers seldom have the resources and contacts to do the actual first investigation themselves - we still have to rely on an increasingly lazy and sycophantic mass media for the source material. Its frustrating, but in some ways its almost a privilege to live in a time that historians are going to universally condemn. "Back in aught '4, kids, we'd forgotten that citizens in a democracy have a right and a responsibility to monitor the actions of their government."
As even the weasel once said:
"When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and, eventually, incapable of determining their own destiny." - Richard M. Nixon
Judith Miller should be fired. What the fuck is she talking about? it's not her job to be critical of the crap the administration is shoveling? A first year journalism student is smarter than that.
Have a drink if you want, but be encouraged that someone is saying this stuff (besides us). It's just more of the drip, drip, drip.
There you go. Our investigative reporters think that the job of the investigative reporter is to report whatever the government tells them.
Yep, that's it.
As was mentioned a few threads back, Miller's performance on Dick Gordon's radio show was appalling. Have a listen, if you have the stomach for it.
She seemed to have not one shred of self criticism or reflection. All she did was defend herself by saying, essentially, what Atrios says here.
Let's cut out the middleman and let the government write the news.
We have! The middleman is, of course, an outsourced employee named Judith Miller.
If that's what she's doing as an "invesigative journalsist" then she's really nothing more than a person employed by a third party to parrot what the government tells her.
Now, why did I cancel my sub to the Post again?
I think the fault lies not just with reporters like Miller (her comments are disgusting, btw) but with the editors of these 'papers of record'. News is a business, and it seems they towed the line that war is good for business. So, they put their love letters to Bush* on the front page, and Pincus is relegated to A13. Some editor's head should roll at the NY Times and the Wash Post if this was a fair and just business. Being 90 percent wrong when people's lives are on the line is unacceptable.
She said "My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
You said "to report whatever the government tells them."
These are, of course, quite different things.
Atrios, either you are very stupid or you are a liar.
The disparity between the Administration's description of Saddam's nuclear capabilities and that given by a variety of experts outside the Administration was easily available to anyone who cared to look beyond the US press (Pincus and a few others excepted). But let's face it Bush et al. clearly were itching for war and lots of others in the US were too. What we're seeing now is a little case of buyer's remorse. The initial fireworks display has turned a little sour. It's costing us money, our guys are slowly but surely getting killed, Iraq is a political quagmire, and it won't so simple to get our greedy little hands on the oil for cheap.
I believe the lack of credibility of Bush's case was shown by the fact that 10 million marched the streets before the war. We were n't all peaceniks. We knew then that it was all bullshit.
In the NPR show, if I recall correctly, Miller explained that, to her, finding out about the aluminum tubes required "investigative reporting," i.e., plumbing her intelligence sources.
She tried to spin it as if the story was something the government did not want to release, and that she had "exposed" that the government was looking at Iraq as a danger.
She said "My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
You said "to report whatever the government tells them."
These are, of course, quite different things.
Must...resist...feeding...trolls...can't...hold out...much...longer...
In the NPR show, if I recall correctly, Miller explained that, to her, finding out about the aluminum tubes required "investigative reporting," i.e., plumbing her intelligence sources.
She tried to spin it as if the story was something the government did not want to release, and that she had "exposed" that the government was looking at Iraq as a danger.
She failed to mention, of course, that the Bushies referred back to her piece as "independent" confirmation that Iraq was a threat.
I think it's truly wonderful that the New York Times continues to employ a woman who dishes up front page stories that are filled with complete falsehoods.
Maybe Miller is CIA. I'm sure the NYTimes is heavily infiltrated with agents.
Damn it, I want to feed the troll(s)!
Damn it, I want to feed the troll(s)!
No no, little NTodd. They're filthy and you just don't know where they've been. What if one bit you? Hmm?
Trolls are supposed to turn to stone if they are out before dark. What time zone is that troll in? Maybe he/she has already petrified?
mondo - but I just got a comment from a troll called "Atrios" at my blog (a referral, oddly enough, from Eschaton):
Hey, you fuckers, buy me some more shit.
I'm about the shit dumbest bastard in the world.
Please, please, can I keep it?
In the NPR show, if I recall correctly, Miller explained that, to her, finding out about the aluminum tubes required "investigative reporting," i.e., plumbing her intelligence sources.
Except, of course, she didn't bother talking (or listening to) intelligence sources that disagreed with her pre-written stories.
Fuck the 'don't feed the trolls' thing.
Hat, you are an idiot.
You think that's bad, there is a troll on Calpundit moved the goalposts on Bush's lying about being in the Air Force (vs. Air National Guard) to new extremes.
Basically he left it at a point where one would only accept a statement by Bush saying "I George W. Bush have not been in the Air Force and when I said that I was in the Air Force I knew I was a lying mofo to be saying so."
So my anecdote is that it truly is pointless to feed trolls, it's a bottomless pit of duplicitous mendacity.
Another example of burying good, probing stories in the back pages (Homepage):
Bush, Aides Ignored CIA Caveats on Iraq
Clear-Cut Assertions Were Made Before Arms Assessment Was Completed
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A17
and how's this for a faint, echoing reverse Picklerism:
For example, when Bush on Sept. 24, 2002, repeated the British claim that Iraq's chemical weapons could be activated within 45 minutes, he ignored the fact that U.S. intelligence mistrusted the source and that the claim never appeared in the October 2002 U.S. estimate.
May Bushco continue to reap what they sowed (is that a word???)..
Please, please, can I keep it?
Oh, OK, NTodd. But you have to promise me you keep it in the garage, not in the house. Understand?
Jeebus, I had to make a pitcher of Hot Toddies to get through that article....every time I read something Judith Miller said I yelled "whore" and took a drink.
It is, after all, going to get down to 5 above zero tonight.
I've been waiting for the feb 26 New York Review of Books to come out since listening to Miller Vs. Massing on NPR's The Connection (mentioned above in this thread). I was sorry that Dick Gordon and Massing didn't give a good bio of Miller and her various political/ideological leanings during the show. Also, it was interesting that Miller kept conflating her own reporting with the Times' Iraq/WMD reporting in general when responding to Massing's criticisms of her work.
Here is the URL for the Feb 3 Connection with Miller and Massing, well worth the listen.
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ra...02/
con_0203b.rm
(or click on the link below)
"Maybe Miller is CIA. I'm sure the NYTimes is heavily infiltrated with agents.
Alex | Email | Homepage | 02.07.04 - 4:22 pm | # "
Take up a collection and ask Novakula. He'll know or who to ask.
Dear n69n,
I include below, Bill Keller's response to allegations against Judith Miller's reporting on weapons of mass destruction to which you refer as written to Daniel Okrent in light of other readers' submitted concerns:
" 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,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Accountability can now be officially removed from the English language.
There you go. Our investigative reporters think that the job of the investigative reporter is to report whatever the government tells them.
With Miller, I'm convinced it's not simply a matter of misunderstanding the guardian role of the press. I think it's rather obvious she's an operative of some kind and her links to such like as Daniel Pipes don't help. Soldiers in the group with which she was embedded complained that she was essentially giving them orders. Clearly, she cares nothing for her reputation as a journalist, which is really down the toilet at this point. She's working another agenda. That she continues on at the Times suggests they're on board as well.
I think it's time to stop whining about a thoroughly corrupt and degenerate media. It's time for boycotts, protests and civil disobedience.
There needs to be a march of some kind specifically aimed at the media's complicity in the lies that led the American people into this war. It seems to me that the New York Times is the most appropriate target for a protest of this kind. It has been as bad as anyone, if not worse, in funneling government spin and it's already tarnished somewhat by the far lesser offenses of Jayson Blair. It should be forced to fire Miller and apologize to its readers. In the meantime, no one should buy it.
There's a reason "hat" picked his handle.
He's talking through his hat
Talking through a hat means you don't know what you're talking about.
It's kind of like MBF, except it's a bit less obviously trollish.
that's a pretty damning statement by Judith Miller. It bears repeating:
my job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.
I think Ms. Miller should be reminded of this statement over and over again, and how she's not a journalist but a media whore transcriber for the rich and powerful.
Jesus H. Christ. Every first year journalism student should be able to see right through that ridiculous assertion.
Dear Sulzberger:
You have degraded a once great newspaper into a cesspool of slander and crony journalism.
resign.
love
56k
PS- your board of directors feels the same way
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=nyt
Right on, Nickname. A very public boycott, so that advertisers can see it, would be very interesting. Like to see the "ombudsman" spin on that one.
Here's a good little summary of Miller's background and ties.
Here's a good little summary of Miller's background and ties.
i guess it is the same mentality as saying "british intel has learned..."
Sure as heck isn't too early for a drink. Bush makes every hour "happy" hour.
The three little words Judy loves to hear:
"For immediate release"
The rule about drinking is it's ok once McDonalds has stopped serving breakfast.
I don't remember where I learned it, but it's worked for me!
What happens when you give a printing press to a pack of dogs?They piss on it,of course.
This is THE story. Something is REALLY wrong with our press, these days.
Corruption or incompetence, or both.
Love, Yesh
i didnt get to finish that thought:
i guess it is the same mentality as saying "british intel has learned..."
in that "i didnt say it was the truth, i 'm just tell you what they have learned."
in this case "i didnt say it was the truth, i 'm just tell you what they are thinking."
Nice find, dm, on the Pincus and Priest story. Those two have been doing nice work. I'm sure all the news orgs will be jumping on THAT story. Any minute now...
(crickets chirping)
At "Seeing the Forest" Tom Spencer and I have been writing about the way Scott Ritter was silenced after Feb. 2003 (a story picked up from the indispensable Bob Somerby at www.dailyhowler.com ).
I'm writing something new about the totalitarian unanimity of American public opinion and the American media before the war. I joke about Godwin's Law a lot, but I don't think that totalitarian is too strong a word. Most of the major media are virtually arms of the RNC.
"My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Incredible confession!!!
shorter version:
I'm a government parrot.
you have to promise me you keep it in the garage, not in the house
I was thinking of keeping him in the duckpit...
I posted this below, but it fits here, too. The internet is what the old alternative press was in the Vietnam Era. That's how the Village Voice got started. Eventually, the things being reported in the Berkeley Barb and the Voice and the L.A. Free Press made it into the mainstream. The internet is much more widely accessed than the old print alternatives were. Eventually, the maintream media will either realize that they have become marginalized by the internet and change their ways, or they will just become more and more tabloid like and noone will pay any attention to them. I predict they will try to change before that happens. I also am thinking that it will be too late.
Hold up. Now Judith Miller's saying it wasn't her role to analyze but simply underscore what the administration was saying? But Judith Miller presented herself as a terrorism "expert" -- sounds analytical to me. She was a media fixture advancing the shaky case for war by megaphoning the BS from her INC "sources", even as the administration was citing her articles to corroborate the same INC sources that they were using ... AAAAAARRRRRGHHHHH!
[*not sarcasm, no, really, we mean not meant in any way other trhan it appears*] There is just not enough hatred of the media in the blogosphere. Could someone with knowledge of graphistry put together a Justine or a gopher-whomping game revolving around the cowardice, uselessness and treasonous hatred for democracy of our fifth columnist fourth estate?
[and, Is that viable? "5c=4e"?]
To report whatever the government tells him is a STENOGRAPHER!
And at "homepage", there will always be a Capra-esque America, especially in England: Independent rips up lying traitor Blair.
Oh, whats more, Judith had a book to sell. Hate to curb future sales when turning in the manuscript based on crap.
Atrios, I was drinking at 3:46 eastern time, and I live in CA! Remember it is always noon somewhere!
Good link.
And the editors of the Post deserve a thorough scoping. We should also notice that there was a big difference between the Post and the Times; at the Post, there was good work being done by the reporters, which was buried by the editors. At the Times, on the other hand, Miller served as a stenographer who never questioned the administration line.
In general, the Post reporting on Washington has been and continues to be good. Sure, they're sometimes wrong, but hell, they're human. Lately, they've been clear and detailed about the flaws in the Bush budget. Got to separate them from the editorial page.
Yup. We still have to read the Post and the Times back-to-front the way the Russians had to read Pravda and Izvestia. The most important stuff still gets buried.
Before the war, the UN had inspectors on the ground. When given leads by the US, the UN inspectors found them to be dead-ends, false leads, worthless information. They told the US this BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. Why oh WHY is anyone buying this "intelligence failure" BS? And why isn't the media pointing this out now?
The US had every opportunity to have the UN find the stockpiles, or at least tell if their intelligence was any good. But upon finding out their intelligence was no good, told the UN inspectors to leave before the bombing began.
That's why so much of what Rumsfeld, Rice, and the others say makes NO SENSE. War was not a last resort, and claims about specific knowledge of WMD had been disproven PRIOR.
Imagine if Russert had tossed this one: given that the UN inspectors were checking US leads and finding them false, why did you continue to claim the intelligence was good enough to start a war? Don't you owe Hans Blix an apology? Doesn't this mean that France and Germany were right in saying there was no evidence for a pre-emptive war?
Remind folks of this information. Try the Letters to the Editor.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
