Judy Miller and the U.N.

The whole sorry story of NYT pseudo-journo Judy Miller and her entanglement in disinformation campaigns concerning Iraq’s alleged WMD arsenal, that were designed to jerk the Bush administration into invading Iraq, has obscured another very important part of Miller’s record: the role she has played in disinformation campaigns aimed against the UN.
Now, Barbara Crosette, who was the NYT’s bureau chief at UN headquarters 1994-2001, has reminded people that:

    Over the last year or so, Judith Miller also wrote a series of damaging reports on the “oil for food” scandal at the United Nations — in particular, personally damaging to Secretary General Kofi Annan because the reports were frequently based on half-truths or hearsay peddled on Capitol Hill by people determined to force Annan out of office. At the UN, this was interpreted as payback for the UN’s refusal to back the US war in Iraq. As a former NYT UN bureau chief [now retired] I have been asked repeatedly by diplomats, former US government officials, journalists still reporting from the organization and others why Times editors did not step in to question some of this reporting — a lot of it proved wrong by the recent report by Paul Volcker — or why the paper seemed to be on a vendetta against the UN. The Times answered that question Sunday in its page one report on the Miller affair. Ms. Run Amok [i.e. Miller] had at least one very highly placed friend at the paper, and many Timespeople were afraid to tangle with her because of that. Note also, that Ambassador John Bolton, a severe critic of the UN and a figure so controversial he could not face a confirmation hearing in the Senate, was one of the administration officials who took time to visit Miller in jail.

Well, having John Bolton visit her in jail is strongly suggestive of a relationship of friendship, but not necessarily of anything more than that. But the “protection” she enjoyed from the people at the top of the NYT– primarily the paper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., and executive editor, Bill Keller— is incontestable, and is amply demonstrated in that story I linked to there.
Between them, those two guys allowed Miller to do virtually as she pleased at the newspaper, without apparently being subject to any of the kinds of control and supervision by a departmental editor that are the norm at all reputable media institutions. Given that a newspaper is indeed liable for huge damages if a reporter publishes something libelous, or makes other serious mistakes, such supervision is natural… But not for Miller….
And then, when she decided for whatever idiosyncratic reason not to accept at face value the waiver of confidentiality that her source in Cheney’s office, Lewis Libby, had offered her a year ago, Sulzberger and Keller continued to back her to the hilt on that. They even had the NYT pay out millions of dollars to hire top-notch lawyers to defend her from the Special Prosecutor, in court. (Also, though she had by that time told them– or at least, Keller– the identity of her mystery “source”, they did not share that info with other Times journos, and indeed squelched the paper’s reporting on the case for quite a period of time.)
What a debacle for a once-great newspaper…
But I’m also intrigued by the point Barbara Crosette made. Time to look again through the portfolio of reporting that Judy Miller did on Kofi Annan and the UN, and look at the damage she caused there.

10 thoughts on “Judy Miller and the U.N.”

  1. Judy Miller is a disgrace to American journalism.
    She’s been lying for decades. She has a hidden agenda and no journalistic ethics whatsoever.
    Ariana Huffington exposed her hypocrisy on her blog last week.
    And Judy Miller is not only a poor journalist but also a terrible writer. A few years ago, she published a book about the Mid East that was full of mistakes and cliches. The great scholar and humanist Edward Said ripped her book to pieces in a scathing critique.
    In France where I live, people are saying that Judy Miller has caused more damage to the New York Times than Jason Blair.
    You’re right. It is sad for a “once-great newspaper”

  2. I paid little attention to Miller’s role in the leadup to the war, and not that much to her Plame involvement.
    Even so, earlier this year the omissions and inadequacies of the NYT in Iraq coverage in particular were so obvious that I came to the conclusion that it was less useful than publishing nothing.
    Given their history and resources at the Times, this could not be an accident.

  3. I am a little surprised no one brings up all the faulty reporting about Iraq and the Middle East before the war and epecially concerning the sanctions. There is nothing new about Miller’s conduct in promoting the war. Crosette also spread disinformation about sanctions and Iraq during the 1990’s. The NYT is not a great paper when it comes to the Middle East. During the 1950’s there was a zionist boycott against the paper because it would not run an add for Yitzak Shamir, whom the paper considered a terrorist for his leadership of the Stern gang. This almost bankrupted the paper and it caved in to boycott and made sure its reporting favored Israel.

  4. During the 1950’s there was a zionist boycott against the paper because it would not run an add for Yitzak Shamir….
    Just out of curiosity, exactly who was trying to run an ad for Yitzhak Shamir in the 1950s, and why? As I recall, Yitzhak Shamir in the 1950s was an official with the Mossad in the 1950s and was more interested in maintaining his anonymity than in running ads in the New York Times!

  5. During the 1950’s there was a zionist boycott against the paper because it would not run an add for Yitzak Shamir…
    I’d be interested in hearing more about this ad. As I recall, Yitzhak Shamir was a Mossad official in the 1950s and was more interested in maintaining his anonymity than in running ads in the New York Times!

  6. Speaking of obscuring records Helena, my postings from a particular host get a response “You are not allowed to post”.
    Would you kindly cease the infantile censorship techniques on my person? It puts you in the company of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China in censoring the Internet, except that they are more effective at it.
    David

  7. David, the entire universe of the WWW is yours to express yourself on (if you pay the cost of entry, as I did by renting this server-space.) Go ahead! Start your own blog! Express yourself!
    If, however, you want to come and express yourself on my space that involves the simple business of striving for truthfulness and courtesy. On that earlier occasion you came onto my space and used it to broadcast wilfull slanders about me. I owe you nothing, friend. And to compare my denying you access to my tiny plot of cyberspace with the actions of repressive governments is obscenely to minimize the harm that they cause.
    I repeat: No-one is censoring you. Go ahead and rent your own soap-box. Maybe someone will come and listen to you there.

  8. Helena, if this is about money send my your address and I’ll send my contribution.
    Moderators decide based on the content of a particular posting. At this point you have disabled an entire host IP address from posting regardless of the content. That is supression of a person or a point of view, and I want your readers to know that.
    You gloated publicly at the designation “Madame provocateur” some gave you for the noise you make against US policy in Iraq, but somehow you cannot deal with a lowly dissenting poster on your board.
    The principle at stake is whether it is best to let the public decide, and it is on that principle that you and Iran coincide.
    David

Comments are closed.