Although The New York Times has endured much criticism for the actions of its once-martyred, now-demonized reporter, Judith Miller, we cannot forget that some of the improprieties now causing such a stir were brought to light by the paper itself. And some of them weren’t.
On Sunday, the paper turned inward and published a self-critical investigative article on the series of events that occurred at the Times. The reporting on Miller came to a critical and now controversial conclusion:
“Interviews show that the paper’s leaders, in taking what they considered to be a principled stand, ultimately left the major decisions in the case up to Ms. Miller, an intrepid reporter whom editors found hard to control.”
Despite Miller’s reputation as a “divisive” loose cannon, her editors apparently did not review her notes from interviews with her confidential source. If they had, they might have learned that she seemingly recorded the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame during a conversation with I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. She claims Libby hinted at Plame’s role, but didn’t identify her by name.
The stories also imply that Miller intentionally misidentified Libby, her unnamed source, with the understanding that Libby’s motivations for the disclosure were politically motivated.
Times editors probably didn’t handle the Miller controversy in the best possible manner. During Miller’s imprisonment, Times editors suppressed Times reporters’ coverage of her source and other issues – apparently, they didn’t want to compromise her legal situation, according to the Times.
In the end, the editors’ decision to report on their own inadequacies remedies some of these prior missteps. The stories reveal that Miller’s actions were not as lofty as previously pegged.
These revelations do not dilute our previous assertions that imprisonment of journalists represents a serious offense to journalism, nor does it negate the need for a federal shield law.
This story underscores why courses on communication law and media ethics should be required, not optional, at this University’s School of Journalism and Communication. Such classes provide students with a foundation for an ethical career, and prepare them for the world of modern journalism.
Miller’s actions also strengthen the case for the adoption of a strong and binding code of ethics. We cannot de-certify an unethical journalist, as doctors or lawyers can disbar a corrupted member of their profession, nor should we be able to do so. But creating a universal code would be a good first move. Such a code should clarify how confidential sources should be used – to help provide the public with information it wouldn’t otherwise receive.
The Miller scandal has again cast one of the nation’s most prominent sources of news in a dubious light. Miller is partially responsible, as are Times’ editors, who made a noble but perhaps misguided attempt to protect one of their own. Yet we must encourage newspapers to follow the Times’ recent example, investigating and reporting news even if it is embarrassing.