Desperately duplicitous Sulzberger rants behind the NYT "Editorial" banner

[understandinglife]

Today on the Editorial page of the New York Times we read a pitiful rant from the increasingly brittle old grey lady.

Free Judy Miller

The New York Times reporter Judith Miller has now been in jail longer for refusing to testify than any reporter working for a newspaper in America. It is a very long time for her, for her newspaper and for the media. And with each dismal milestone, ....

<clip>

It's time for the authorities who jailed Ms. Miller to recognize that continued incarceration is not going to sway a reporter who believes she is making a principled sacrifice. .... This is not about Judith Miller or The Times or the outing of one C.I.A. agent. The jailing of this reporter is about the ability of a free press in America to do its job.

Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29mon2.html?pagewanted=print

Before commenting further on this totally transparent effort to cover-up the NYTimes complicity in Miller's neoconster propagandizing, let's take a look at a little item from Media Matters on the lies of another neocon propaganda organ, Time.

Did Time intentionally deceive its readers in Plame case?

Yet on October 13, 2003, three months after receiving the leak from Rove and Libby, Duffy -- the very person to whom Cooper had passed on the information concerning Wilson's wife and the source who gave that information to him -- wrote an article for Time on the subject. In the article, to which Cooper contributed reporting, was this passage:

When word spread last week that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was launching a full criminal probe into who had leaked Plame's identity, Democrats immediately raised a public alarm: How could Justice credibly investigate so secretive an Administration, especially when the investigators are led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose former paid political consultant Karl Rove was initially accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak? A TIME review of federal and state election records reveals that Ashcroft paid Rove's Texas firm $746,000 for direct-mail services in two gubernatorial campaigns and one Senate race from 1984 through 1994. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said accusations of Rove's peddling information are "ridiculous." Says McClellan: "There is simply no truth to that suggestion."

Duffy wrote that Rove was "initially" accused by Wilson of being the man behind the leak, as though Wilson was no longer making that accusation or that the accusation was found to be without merit. In fact, Wilson did not back down from the charge, although he did allow that he had no proof of Rove's involvement. For instance, appearing on the September 29, 2003, edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, Wilson said, "I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak. What I do have are any number of journalist sources, none of whom I have any reason not to believe, who have said that the White House was pushing this story after the leak, after the Novak article, and including Karl Rove."

Of course, it turned out that Wilson's charge was correct, as Cooper and his editors knew all along. Despite that knowledge, Time printed a quote from McClellan that they knew to be false without offering any refutation.

Duffy, Cooper, and Time not only failed to inform their readers in July 2003 that they were part of the story, but they continued to report on the leak without offering that information for more than a year. In addition to two stories in October 2003, Time wrote about the leak again on January 12, 2004. It was not until August 2004, when Cooper was held in contempt by the grand jury investigating the Plame leak, that it was revealed that Cooper was involved in the Plame affair.

Link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508290004

The owners and executive management of Time, Inc. and the New York Times, and the other media darlings exclaiming Judith-as-martyr, are doing way more to destroy the First Amendment than Fitzgerald.

As several of us have noted, Judge Tatel and his colleagues did not order Miller and Cooper to respond to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury without agonizing over the First Amendment implications of their actions. In fact, Judge Tatel attempted, mightly, to write new law, but decided that Cooper and Miller's actions constituted a threat to our National Security.

Lawrence O'Donnell riveted attention to one of the opinions in the case in an article he published at Huffington Post:

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues' order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges "in the light of reason and experience." Tatel actually found that reason and experience "support recognition of a privilege for reporters' confidential sources." But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to "the gravity of the suspected crime."

Judge Tatel's opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to "having carefully scrutinized (the prosecutor's) voluminous classified filings."

<clip>

Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters' shield law -- but in the end, he couldn't bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he "might have" let Cooper and Miller off the hook "were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security."

<clip>

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

From The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted by Lawrence O'Donnell on July 7, 2005

Link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/the-one-very-good-reason-_b_3769.html

The owners and the executive management teams of Time, Inc and the New York Times have evidently decided to continue perpetrating the lies, participating in the willful deception of the American public, and aiding and abetting the destruction of not only the First Amendment but of the Republic.

And, in the case of today's New York Times editorial, the quality of the prose likely indicates who wrote the claptrap -- Arthur, let someone do your writing for you.

Fitzgerald, the Circuit Judges and the Grand Jury are attempting to bring to justice those who willfully destroyed not merely (as the NYTimes editorial tellingly mis-characterizes the crime) an important CIA asset, the covert agent ValeriP, but the considerable intelligence infrastructure, focused on WMD, that was willfully vaporized by those who leaked her identity and those who broadcasted it.

The greater faults of the New York Times, in propagandizing for Bush and the neoconsters, should now make it clear that the slogan of the grey old lady is irrevocably -- 'all the lies that are fit to print.'


Peace.

[KoKo]

1. Thanks for linking those articles all together.

NYT's was a "co-conspirator" in Invasion of Iraq. Sulzberger should be held accountable.

[understandinglife]

2. I think he and his lawyers are likely grappling with that very issue.

Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

3. Thank you U.L.

always appreciate how you link articles together

[KoKo]

8. It's good that WE are able to put together more than the M$M these days

isn't it? :D

[understandinglife]

9. I think "We The People...." are precisely the one's who need to be ...

... assembling the facts, doing the analysis and spreading the information. Relying on folk with agenda other than the truth is an experiment we do not ever need to do again, in America (and we strongly urge folk elsewhere to be their own 'media,' as well).


Peace.

[glitch]

11. Well said. nt

:dem:

[hiley]

4. Thank you UL for putting these articles

together ..
Excellent and recommend.

[hiley]

5. Hoping some others will see this

post so I am kicking.

[scarletwoman]

6. "Free Judy Miller" -- an utterly gag-inducing piece of Orwellian crap.

She's an accessory to a crime -- not just the Plame outing, but the wholly illegal and monstrous invasion of Iraq as well.

She can get out of jail anytime she wants to, all she has to do is obey the court. Otherwise, tough sh*t, Judy.

sw

[understandinglife]

7. Could not have said it any better! Thank you. I realize the devestation ..

...being caused by Katrina and the need for folk to focus on that and help, but I do hope our fellow DUers are able to see in the actions of the NY Times, yet again, and, Time Inc., yet again, reasons for being unrelenting in demanding that they cease being propagandists and apologists for the treasonous criminals responsible for converting America into a ruthless, rogue state.


Peace.

[understandinglife]

10. Huffington: "Reading the latest New York Times Judy Miller editorial ...

.... is the journalistic equivalent of watching a bombing comic pull out all the stops in a frantic attempt to wring a reaction out of his audience. You can feel the flop sweat dripping off the page (It reminds me of the classic Lenny Bruce bit where Lenny, going down in flames at the London Palladium, resorts to shouting out “Screw the Irish!” in hope of winning over the hostile British crowd. The Times opts for “They’re screwing with the First Amendment!”)

Today’s impassioned defense -- No.

5 in an increasingly desperate series -- reads like it was written by someone in a rhetoric class forced to make a case for a cause they don’t really believe in.

<clip>

Today’s editorial ended on a melodramatic note: “If Judith Miller loses this fight, we all lose. This is not about Judith Miller or The Times or the outing of one CIA agent. The jailing of this reporter is about the ability of a free press in America to do its job.”

Give me a break. This is about none of these things. This is about Judith Miller. And about what role she played in the smearing of a whistleblower. And before we hang the future of the freedom of the press and the vitality of the First Amendment on her, it would be helpful to know whether she was simply an observer of that smearing or an active participant. It would also be interesting to hear from the Times why it has deviated from its own ethical guidelines, which make it clear that the paper’s policy does not permit the granting of anonymity to confidential sources ‘as cover for a personal or partisan attack’. That would certainly seem to include the commission of a felony. But I could be missing something.

From The Judy Tsunami: The Groundswell That Never Was by Arianna Huffington on August 29, 2005

More at the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-judy-tsunami-the-gro_b_6398.html

The only thing the old grey lady has been screwing are the citizens of America and Iraq -- to death, in many cases.


Peace.

[Cha]

13. That's how I felt when I read

it..pathetic!

[Cha]

12. Bullshit! And I hope you get called

on it, nyt.

[kodi]

14. the courts have settled this long ago with the Branzburg case

As can be seen from the account of the underlying facts in
Branzburg, there is no material factual distinction between the
petitions before the Supreme Court in Branzburg and the
appeals before us today. Each of the reporters in Branzburg
claimed to have received communications from sources in
confidence, just as the journalists before us claimed to have
done. At least one of the petitioners in Branzburg had witnessed
the commission of crimes. On the record before us, there is at
least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one
or both journalists received information concerning the identity
of a covert operative of the United States from government
employees acting in violation of the law by making the
disclosure. Each petitioner in Branzburg and each journalist
before us claimed or claims the protection of a First Amendment
reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms
rejected the existence of such a privilege. As we said at the
outset of this discussion, the Supreme Court has already decided
the First Amendment issue before us today.

In rejecting the claim of privilege, the Supreme Court made
its reasoning transparent and forceful. The High Court
recognized that “the grand jury’s authority to subpoena witnesses is
not only historic . . . but essential to its task.” 408
U.S. at 688 (citation omitted). The grand juries and the courts
operate under the “longstanding principle that ‘the public has a
right to every man’s evidence,’ except for those persons
protected by constitutional, common law, or statutory privilege.”
Id. (citations and internal punctuation omitted). The Court then
noted that “the only testimonial privilege for unofficial
witnesses that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth
Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.” Id.
at 689-90. The Court then expressly declined “to create another
by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a
testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy.” Id. at
690. In language as relevant to the alleged illegal disclosure of
the identity of covert agents as it was to the alleged illegal
processing of hashish, the Court stated that it could not
“seriously entertain the notion that the First Amendment protects
a newsman’s agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his
source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write
about a crime than to do something about it.” Id. at 692.

Lest there be any mistake as to the breadth of the rejection
of the claimed First Amendment privilege, the High Court went
on to recognize that “there remain those situations where a
source is not engaged in criminal conduct but has information
suggesting illegal conduct by others.” Id. at 693. As to this
category of informants, the Court was equally adamant in
rejecting the claim of First Amendment privilege:

e cannot accept the argument that the public interest in
possible future news about crime from undisclosed,
unverified sources must take precedence over the public
interest in pursuing and prosecuting those crimes reported
to the press by informants and in thus deterring the
commission of such crimes in the future.

The Branzburg Court further supported the rejection of this
claimed privilege by the commonsense observation that “it is
obvious that agreements to conceal information relevant to the
commission of crime have very little to recommend them from
the standpoint of public policy.” Id. at 696. While the Court
recognized the right of the press to abide by its agreements not
to publish information that it has, the Court stated unequivocally
that “the right to withhold news is not equivalent to a First
Amendment exemption from an ordinary duty of all other
citizens to furnish relevant information to a grand jury
performing an important public function.” Id. at 697.

We have pressed appellants for some distinction between
the facts before the Supreme Court in Branzburg and those
before us today. They have offered none, nor have we
independently found any. Unquestionably, the Supreme Court
decided in Branzburg that there is no First Amendment privilege
protecting journalists from appearing before a grand jury or
from testifying before a grand jury or otherwise providing
evidence to a grand jury regardless of any confidence promised
by the reporter to any source. The Highest Court has spoken and
never revisited the question. Without doubt, that is the end of
the matter.


http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf>Link.

[understandinglife]

15. Exactly. And, thank you for posting this. What so many have failed ...

... to recognize, including the incessantly duplicitous Sulzberger and his minions at the old grey lady, is that Judge Tatel literally tried to create new law. He tried hard. But, Fitzgerald's evidence of major damage to our National Security convinced him that Miller and Cooper did not deserve the effort or the precedence.

Thus, I give Sulzberger and all the other executives at the New York Times the 'UL Traitor of the Year Award' for at least the next five years -- got that Arthur.

Stop wasting ink. You owe everyone one final headline -- WE APOLOGIZE. WE DEMAND BUSH AND CHENEY'S RESIGNATION. WE ARE OVER.

Whether they ever write it - they are over as are Bush, Cheney and all their fellow neoconster war criminals and propagandists.


Peace.

[snot]

16. To add another jot re- the legal analysis . . .

I'm not sure any of our Constitutional rights are absolute; like my dad said, quoting I forget who, "My right to swing my arm ends at the other guy's nose."

I'm a huge First Amdt. fan; but there are legitimate limits to it. For example, if I recall correctly, the First Amendment does not privilege anyone to knowingly slander another.

Surely, therefore, it does not privilege anyone to abet treason.

[understandinglife]

17. "Surely, therefore, it does not privilege anyone to abet treason."

You are certainly correct. And, given how robustly Judge Tatel and the other Justices cited "National Security" concerns, any reasonable person would conclude that Judith Miller (and her bosses) simply can't, or don't want to, count to 5.

She's faking the 1st when, all along, Fitzgerald and the Judges know she really should have been invoking the 5th.


Peace.

[GoBlue]

18. Is poor Judy theatening to pull the plug on you and your ilk...

Mr. Sulzberger?

[understandinglife]

19. One can only imagine all the threats emanating from that jail phone ...

.... in Alexandria, VA.


Peace.