Sonntag, Oktober 16, 2005

What the ...?

Ok, let's see if I got this one right.

Miller goes to jail to protect a source. Or, more exactly, she goes to jail for refusing to talk to a grand jury, claiming that to do so would force her to reveal her source.

But that source didn't insist on being protected and was surprised to find out that it was the reason she went to jail.

The newspaper stands behind her, but no one understands what the hell is going on. They don't insist on being filled in, but rather let Miller decide what the paper decides.

Millions are spent on lawyers.

No one understands what the hell is going on.

The source is perplexed. Turns out that he hasn't had any contact with Miller for an entire year, and that Miller interpreted this as the source not wanting to be revealed.

Quote: "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said.

And when push comes to shove: "Her paramount concern was how her actions would be viewed by her colleagues."

And it turns out that the source said:

Mr. Libby assured Ms. Miller that he had wanted her to testify about their conversations all along. "I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will benefit all," he wrote.

Now this in itself is just plain weird. But it does become clearer:

On Sept. 29, Ms. Miller was released from jail and whisked by Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller to the Ritz-Carlton Georgetown for a massage, a manicure, a martini and a steak dinner. The next morning, she testified before the grand jury for three hours. Afterward, Ms. Miller declared that her ordeal was a victory for journalists and the public.

She's gonna get a First Amendment Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.

What the ...?

All I see is a grandstanding reporter who knows how to bullshit her editors.

Instead of talking with her source, she goes to jail on an assumption that the source doesn't want her to talk? And never tried to get in touch with him?

I can see this from an immature, insecure 25-year old who want to grandstand, but we're talking about a 57-year old.

Apply Ockham's Razor, I think that what we have here is an immature, insecure 57-year old who grandstanded for reasons apparent only to herself. She's more concerned about how she appears than the truth. Sound familiar? A sophist.

And a New York Times whose editors have abdicated any and every professional responsibility.

It's a real shame. I grew up reading the New York Times. It has fallen a long, long way. And unfortunately, it has yet a ways to go before it might be able to recover. It's sad.

Keine Kommentare: