E&P's Mitchell Scores the Miller Saga Right I had a glimmer of hope that the NYTimes would acquit itself (and journalism as a whole) with its story upon the release of Miller. The hope lingered as I took the further testimony of Miller to be a reasonable cause for delay. That expectation has been washed away. The NYTimes is now engaging in organizational CYA for the poor way it handled Miller (and her work).

Miller is lying about the appearance of "Valerie Flame" amongst the notes from her meeting with Libby. My understanding, at this time, is that we are to take as the truth that the name appeared amongst the notes from that meeting though Libby didn't supply it and that Miller has no recollection of how she got that name. It is a bit of a stretch I admit but the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that Miller was a willing participant in the WMD deception and this is the price she must pay to keep that a secret (although I give it a chance that it wasn't until later that she became a co-conspirator).

Just about every day I read something that claims this or that spells the doom of journalistic MSM. It's all pretty much rant. This is one of those cases that not only has potential for playing in the death of a thousand cuts but also seriously harming the one quality that can mean the survival of journalism, professionalism. The staff of the Times is already showing the signs of discontent. The NYTimes is reputedly one of the flagships of orthodox journalism; their poor handling of Miller and lack of transparency on this matter is not an inspirational example. If this is the best of the best, then the rest of us might as well just be hacks.  ¶ 10/16/2005 12:26:00 AM