Friday, November 11, 2005

New defnition of "Lame"

And her name is Judith Miller.

I heard her on NPR where she tries to defend herself. I hear (and I'm listening to it again since I was incensed the first time I heard it) in order:

  1. It was the "new management's" fault.
  2. She's blaming her editors for her shoddy "journalism".
  3. I don't remember and I didn't take notes (what kind of "journalist" doesn't take notes out their ass?).
  4. Everybody's doing it (this "addribution" crap she's using to blame the fact she lies about who told her what).
  5. I'm so good and jail was so hard.

Okay so I haven't been to jail as a journalist but still, it's not like it's solitary confinement in Joliet. My guess it that it was a white collar prison. And it's not like she didn't choose to go there (apparently to revitalize her flagging credibility) or spent "five to ten".

It seemed to me to be a grand-standing effort in order to look like the "poor little journalist going to jail to protect her sources". It doesn't seem to have worked well. Her fellow journalist are lambasting her.
(this one is pretty harsh)
(this one not so much but does point out that she never seemed to let "facts" or "truth" get in her way)
(and this implies - "Libby reaffirmed" - that she didn't really go to jail to protect her sources; the jail was the Alexandria City Jail, not Alcatraz by my guess; some of her works contained "a number of factual errors with regard to historical context", sounds like she doesn't do much "research")

I couldn't find (finally did) what she got the Pulitzer for. The whole New York Times staff got it for "Explanatory Reporting" on the global war on terror. Given her "reports" on WMD I wonder who many "facts" wandered into that place.


Post a Comment

<< Home