Liz Smith - Newsday -
I THOUGHT the biggest news story of the week would be clawed to death by the media after Daniel Okrent, the public editor of The New York Times, posited his theories Sunday about Times reporter Judy Miller - how she told things on TV talk shows that the newspaper did not report, deny or examine. I thought, at least, there'd be a followup in the Times; perhaps something will appear this Sunday. But all week, there was only silence.
Miller is the reporter who may go to jail for her refusal to name sources in another matter. If she is jailed, it will certainly be making her career and salvage her reputation at the Times. Most of the media will applaud and stand behind her. (I certainly will, and I need to note here she is a friend of mine.)
But Okrent had a different bone to pick. He questioned Judy's recent appearance on "Hardball With Chris Matthews," where she said that "sources had told her the Bush administration has been reaching out to Iraqi political figure Ahmad Chalabi 'to offer him expressions of cooperation' ... Perhaps a chance to be interior minister of the new government."
Okrent said Miller's statement was "a shocker," and it had been called by Jack Shafer of slate.com "the second-biggest story of the day after the successful election." Okrent went on to question whether reporters should talk on air about things they do not or cannot print, things their newspapers don't or can't nail down. He noted that it was one thing for opinion columnists such as Maureen Dowd to go on TV and give views, but when a reporter representing the Times does it, the public has a right to question why her paper isn't printing the story.
The Times can't be happy that Okrent gave them one right in the eye at a time when they're trying to shore up and back up Miller. I'm waiting to hear the editors explain why Judy's reve- lations have not been printed. |
