Miller's Out Post

At the certainty of blowing my own horn, I have to say that I predicted the New York Times' utterly dishonest spin on Judith F. Miller.

Here's what I said:

Perhaps J.F. Miller will claim her high-minded principle was that she couldn't go back and ask Libby for a waiver, because then her promise of confidentiality was something less than absolute.

Here's an op-ed from today's Times on Saint Jude:

Why, then, did she agree to testify yesterday? Could Ms. Miller have gotten the permission earlier? Why didn't she just pick up the phone and ask?

When a journalist guarantees confidentiality, it means that he or she is willing to go to jail rather than disclose the source's identity. We also believe it means that the journalist will not try to coerce the source into granting a waiver to that promise - even if her back is against the wall. If Ms. Miller's source had wanted to release her from her promise, he could have held a press conference and identified himself. And obviously, he could have picked up the phone. Ms. Miller believed - and we agree - that it was not her place to try to hound him into telling her that she did not need to keep her promise.

And here's what the Times reported:

Ms. Miller authorized her lawyers to seek further clarification from Mr. Libby's representatives in late August, after she had been in jail for more than a month.

Contacting a source to coerce a waiver: bad. Authorizing your lawyers to seek clarification of the granting a waiver: good.

And the angels dance away on Gail Collins' head.