[Mb-civic] Arianna's latest on Judy Miller w/inside info on Sulzberger

[Mike Blaxill]

Arianna's Judy dispatches keep getting better -
here's the latest

Howell Raines Redux

As the New York Times’ full-throated defense of
Judith Miller hits new lows (Bob Dole brought in
as a friend of the court?) the $64,000 question
remains: Why is the paper linking itself so
completely to Miller’s fate?

“The thing you’ve got to understand,” a source
familiar with both Judy and the inner workings of
the Times told me, “is that every big decision
that comes out of the Times comes directly from
the top. Nobody does anything there without
Arthur Sulzberger’s approval. It’s the larger,
untold story in all of this -- that he now runs
the newsroom.”

Sulzberger, who succeeded his father as publisher
in 1992 and chairman of the New York Times Co. in
1997, has been friends with Miller for a long
time. But that doesn’t seem to be the reason
behind the unequivocal stance on Miller. “You
have to understand something about Arthur,” my
source explained. “He’s always unequivocal. He
doesn’t have another setting. You’re either his
friend or his enemy. He either supports you in an
extreme, almost childish, way or he won’t speak
to you.”

Sulzberger has clearly chosen the extreme support
path when it comes to Miller. “There are times
when the greater good of our democracy demands an
act of conscience,” he said after Miller was
taken to jail. “Judy has chosen such an act in
honoring her promise of confidentiality to her
sources.”

Directly contradicting this position is a former
Timesman with impeccable journalistic
credentials. Bill Kovach, the former Times
Washington bureau chief, former curator of the
Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, and
founding director of the Committee of Concerned
Journalists, has publicly voiced what many in and
around the paper are saying privately. 

“When I was chief of the bureau in Washington,”
he told Sidney Blumenthal, “we laid down a rule
to the reporters that when they wanted to
establish anonymity they had to lay out ground
rules that if anything the source said was
damaging, false or damaged the credibility of the
newspaper we would identify them. If a man
damages your credibility, why not lay the blame
where it belongs? Whoever was leaking that
information to Novak, Cooper or Judy Miller was
doing it with malice aforethought, trying to set
up a deceptive circumstance. That would
invalidate any promise of confidentiality. You
wouldn't protect a source for telling lies or
using you to mislead your audience. That changes
everything. Any reporter that puts themselves or
a news organization in that position is making a
big mistake.”

Apparently, Sulzberger is furious with Kovach for
these remarks.
(ha ha!)

rest is here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/howell-raines-redux_b_5822.html