Embedded over her head in Washington

[FormerRepublican]

"TIM ROBBINS, in tackling the pretenses of patriotism, has risen to a challenge that mainstream journalism has largely failed to meet. Robbins' provocative play about the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and the obsequiousness of an embedded press made its TV debut Sunday on the Sundance Channel.

"Embedded/Live" nails the media's craven complicity in amplifying the drums of war. As the Los Angeles Times noted in its review of the filmed version of the play (which premiered here in 2003), when a chorus invokes the name of Robert Novak, the audience's "laughter is followed by uneasy recognition. We might wish this were old news, but it's still there staring us in the face every day."

Indeed it is, for columnist Novak was the first to "out" Valerie Plame — wife of whistle-blower Joe Wilson, a former ambassador — as a CIA agent. The case landed New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail, turning her into a cause celebre for her refusal to testify before a grand jury about her contact with sources in the Plame case. "If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press," said Miller, dramatically equating the protection of secret sources with the survival of a free press.

But what her avowedly principled defense of journalistic sources may turn out to be is a window into the practice of official corruption of journalistic integrity in times of war, which is what "Embedded/Live" so effectively highlights.

Unfortunately, rather than a story about a martyr to the cause of journalistic ethics and a free press, this is about a reporter embedded over her head. It is a depressing example of how far Big Media has moved away from the journalistic ideal of "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable."

Sure, the idea of protecting sources is a good one, in that reporters should keep their word and, by doing so, maintain their ability to secure information in the future. But ultimately the journalist is not morally or professionally beholden to sources but rather to the public. The salient fact of this ugly episode is that the White House was trying to use cultivated journalists, secret sourcing and classified information in an attempt to smear a legitimate whistle-blower who was challenging its rationale for leading the nation into war."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-0e-scheer23aug23,1,115021.column

There are a number of things about Judith Miller's involvement and refusal to reveal her sources that makes me wonder. There are some interesting bits and pieces that add to my discomfort over this case.

"More specifically, the importance prosecutors attach to learning what occurred during Miller's meeting with Libby is illustrated by a subpoena by Fitzgerald's grand jury of Miller on August 20, 2004, for "any and all documents (including notes, e-mails, or other documents) relating to any conversations, occurring on or about July 6, 2003 to on or about July 13, 2003, between Judith Miller and a government official whom she met in Washington D.C. on July 8, 2003, concerning Valerie Plame Wilson."

Miller was also ordered to bring to the grand jury "documents provided to Judith Miller by such government official on July 8, 2003."

Details of the subpoena to Miller were first disclosed in a story in Newsday by reporter Tom Brune.

In an affidavit prepared by Miller to respond to the request, Miller said she "did not receive any documents" from the person she met, but declined to say who the person was that she met on July 8.

In subsequent court papers filed in federal court by attorneys for Miller and The New York Times, the newspaper said that Miller "had no documents responsive" to Fitzgerald's request of any documents given to her on July 8, 2003.

But Miller's affidavit and other court filings by the Times -- and the narrow language contained therein -- did not say whether Miller might have read or reviewed any documents that might have brought to the July 8, 2003, meeting.

And an attorney in private practice who once worked closely with Fitzgerald while both men were federal prosecutors said that the specific nature of Fitzgerald’s request was a "good indication that has specific information ... or perhaps even a witness who saw, or had other information" that Libby "might have brought documents to the meeting with Miller.""

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10077

I often wonder if Judith Miller might be a participant in espionage a la Franklin, Perle and others, and might be using the reporters shield as a convenient cover to hide behind. Could Judith Miller have received documents from Scooter Libby that she then passed on to unknown parties? Foreign governments?

Might she be yet another party to this case guilty of obstruction, rather than merely taking a stand for her principles?

[ewagner]

1. Several points raised here...

First Imbedded was brilliant and disturbing. I enjoyed it while having moments of extreme moral discomfort during the play.

Second, If I remember correctly, Sweet Judith, called a think tank and gave them a "head's up" that they were about to raided in connection with the Franklin case. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Third, it seems to me that Fitzgerald already KNOWS what went down but he's trying to close up all the rabbit holes that might be used as escape tunnels for Rove, Libby, Miller, and (oh God, it's almost too much to hope for)Bolton.