PressEthic

Now that New York Times reporter Judith Miller is out of jail and testifying about her now-not-so-anonymous source, the paper faces the same task it did after the Jayson Blair escapades: writing about itself.

Or, as The Columbia Journalism Review suggests, not writing about itself.

Tuesday’s edition of the NYT was the first issue to address Miller since her release. Even then it was on page A20 and - after all that anticipation - not very forthcoming. As CJR’s Steve Lovelady noted Tuesday:

Consider:

Right after Keller's quote, Seelye writes: "In an interview after her [newsroom] appearance, Ms. Miller said she would cooperate with the newspaper's reporters."

Sounds good! Until we read along for three more paragraphs, where we find this line: "In the interview, she declined to reveal what she had told the grand jury."

D*mn. So much for cooperation.

It is assumed there’s a decent sense of news judgment at The New York Times. Certainly no one had to tell editors that one of the hottest stories of the day just happened to be about one of their reporters. Yet the only thing this article really revealed was that Miller said she “upheld the principles she went to jail to protect.”

I guess a revelation like that really doesn’t belong on page one.

There was plenty of transparency after Jayson Blair. The paper was quick to apologize and, forgive a poker player’s phrasing, laid its cards on the table. So why is it bluffing now?

Another CJR post states that the Times has “apparently gagged and handcuffed” its reporting staff to stay away from this story.

Maybe the question isn’t why the Times is shutting its eyes to this. Maybe we should ask why - if Judith Miller doesn’t want to fully disclose her story - her principles are any better than those of the people who threw her in jail. Why go to all that trouble getting a source to talk when the reporter, now a source herself, is staying quiet?

It’s one thing to be a martyr. It’s another to be a hypocrite.