There is little more hallowed in journalism than the commitment to protecting a confidential source, but that principle has been muddied beyond recognition in the experience of Judith Miller and The New York Times.
Miller served 85 days in jail rather than testify about confidential conversations she had with I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Libby wasn’t quite as loyal to Miller in 2003 as she to him in 2005. In attempting to generate a story about Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, Libby apparently talked to multiple reporters. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the improper outing of Plame because she was a clandestine CIA operative. Libby is one of several administration figures to fall under his gaze. Karl Rove, the president’s top political aide, is another.
Other reporters accepted a waiver of confidentiality from Libby and talked to prosecutors. After all, Libby was no government whistleblower who needed protection from the boss. Even now, unaccountably, he seems to have Cheney’s wholehearted support. (Libby is still his top aide.)
The Times ended its curious quiet on Sunday with a comprehensive inside account of the Miller episode along with Miller’s own version of events, including her appearance before a federal grand jury after she ended her self-imposed time in jail.
Libby’s conversations with Miller turned out to be shameless spin sessions, with secret information as bait. Miller says at one point she agreed to Libby’s suggestion that she identify him for publication as a former congressional staffer. That was a red herring meant to disguise the administration’s hit on Wilson. Miller’s acquiescence defies the standards of mainstream news organizations such as the Times, where the goal is to provide readers with enough honest detail about an anonymous source so they can discern the credibility of the information and the motive of the source. This could be a firing offense if Miller had committed the sin in print, but she never wrote a story.
That was just one of Miller’s disquieting acknowledgments. The mystery source tops the list. The name “Valerie Flame” (sic) was written in Miller’s notes near her Libby scribbles, but she says she doesn’t think Libby ever mentioned the name. So if the name didn’t come from Libby, than who? Miller said she can’t recall, provoking disbelief from the blogosphere and perhaps Fitzgerald.
Contrast that to oft-vilified columnist Robert Novak, who actually did write a story and actually did identify Plame by name. He attributed the information to two Bush administration sources. Novak’s approach allowed his readers to accurately infer the purpose of the leak – retaliation against Wilson for his opposition to Iraq policy.
The Times is sure to face more questions about Miller. Critics are wondering about her claim to a Pentagon security clearance, about the unusual latitude she seemed to enjoy at the paper – and about Iraq stories that did appear, accounts on the United Nations’ oil for food program, for example.
The Times earned both praise and criticism for its all-out defense of Miller when she chose jail to protect her source. The paper “incurred millions of dollars in legal fees,” and “limited its own ability to cover aspects of one of the biggest scandals of the day,” it wrote in its Sunday epic. “Even as the paper asked for the public’s support, it was unable to answer its questions.”
Miller’s troubling account has added as many questions as it answered.
