Will it be the end or a new beginning for the Times?

I have made no secret of the fact that I don't think much of The New York Times. A good share of my loathing, but not all, revolves around Judith Miller. Well this Sunday the Times will have a "full account" of the Judith Miller affair. Arianna Huffington has a Memo to the Times where she compares the Judith Miller fiasco to the Jason Blair debacle. While there are similarities Jason Blair's sloppy reporting didn't result in anyone's death while Judith Miller's regurgitation of neocon talking points did. It is probably true that the same corporate mindset resulted in both. The very future of the Times depends on this report on Judith Miller; if they are upfront and honest it can be a new beginning, if they are not it may be the end. Arianna asks what is going to be in the "full disclosure"?

For instance, is it going to focus only on “the drama” of Judy’s time behind bars -- or will it finally shed some light on her still very murky role in Plamegate? Will it include an accounting of Miller’s grand jury testimony? More on her relationship with Scooter Libby? Will it delve into Miller’s dreadful reporting on WMD in Iraq -- the issue that brought her to the Plame dance in the first place?

And how will this “full account” be fact-checked? Will it be told exclusively from Miller’s perspective or will the Times reporters vet her claims by speaking with other sources? For instance, will they run what Miller says by Libby’s lawyer -- or will they just ask Lou Dobbs to pant and moan over Miller’s “sacrifice”? Will they interview editors and reporters from the Times who observed first-hand Miller’s actions during the period in question (and who are speaking privately about her questionable methods)? In other words, will they apply the same journalistic standards to the Judy Miller story they would to any other subject?

So what will they do? Will they continue to give Miller special treatment?

Miller was also given special treatment -- even after her deeply-flawed reporting on WMD, even after the paper was forced to apologize for four of her WMD stories, even after her highly-irregular behavior while embedded in Iraq, even after she was forced off the WMD beat in hope she would quit, even after a number of her colleagues refused to share a byline with her. Even, even, even…

Apparently, the Times can’t course-correct until it has hit the iceberg and is taking on water. It’s the paper’s tragic institutional flaw.

It will be interesting to see if those captaining the paper pull hard on the wheel on Sunday -- or merely spend a few thousand words rearranging the deck chairs.

Related
This is interesting: Is Maureen Dowd Boycotting TimesSelect?

Update
Miller Surrenders Additional Notes

According to sources involved in the Judith Miller case, lawyers for Miller have turned over an additional, previously unreported batch of notes on the New York Times reporter's conversations with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The notes, a source said, could significantly change the time frame of Miller's involvement with Libby.

[.....]

The presence of the undisclosed set of notes comes as the Times is seeking to quell internal and external criticism over a lack of transparency in the Miller case. In today's Times, executive editor Bill Keller said Miller’s potential return trip to meet with Fitzgerald could further delay the Times' plans to publish an account of the Miller saga. Deputy managing editor Jonathan Landman, who has been tapped to edit the report, declined to discuss the state of the paper's Miller reporting.