Still More...The Times, Miller and Plamegate

I have already pointed out that the future of The New York Times may well be decided in the next few days in Will it be the end or a new beginning for the Times?. This morning David Corn asks Is Judy Miller Worse for the Times than Jayson Blair?. I think the answer is an obvious yes but I'll let David speak for himself.

Reading the Times on this critical story has unfortunately become like reading a state-owned newspaper on the conduct of its government-owner. Why cannot the Times tell us how these "newly discovered" notes were discovered? Or what they say? As HuffPost Head Honcho Arianna Huffington has noted once or twice, Time's Matt Cooper has told much--though not all--about his involvement in the case. Yet the Times comes up with a formulation bordering on magic--"newly discovered"--to describe (without explaining) the appearance of new evidence in this case.

Karl Rove or other top Bush officials may be staring down the barrel of an indictment. This all could become the Big Story of the day. Yet the Times seems to have tied itself up in a straitjacket. Why? To protect Judy Miller? To protect itself from Judy Miller? I don't know. Prior to the Plame/CIA leak scandal (a.k.a. the Rove scandal), Miller had already tainted the paper's reputation in a more significant manner than had Blair with her war-greasing stories on WMDs in Iraq that--whaddayaknow--didn't exist. These days she appears to be causing the Times to screw up its coverage of the most significant scandal yet to strike the Bush administration. Now this, we can say, is a journalist who has an impact.

Jayson Blair hurt The Times but they came clean and he didn't interfere with The Times' ability to report on the big stories of the day. Because of Judith Miller The Times seems incapable of reporting on what may be one of the biggest stories of the Bush administration. The clock is ticking for the Gray Lady. They have to quit trying to spin the news and start reporting it very soon.