The motives behind just-released New York Times reporter Judith Miller's choice to at first conceal her source in conversations leading to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame have fallen under scrutiny.
Miller's source has been revealed to be Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby's attorneys claimed yesterday in an interview with the Washington Post that he had granted Miller permission to disclose his identity over a year ago, and that they weren't even aware that his identity was the cause of her incarceration until she asked for permission again just weeks ago. Furthermore, Libby has co-operated with the investigation thus far, and has repeatedly allowed other reporters to reveal him as a source throughout the Plame Affair.
"I was a journalist doing my job, protecting my source until my source freed me to perform my civic duty to testify," Miller explained in a statement after her release. Her associates have also told the Associated Press that she had reason to believe that Libby had been co-erced into granting her permission the first time.
Advertisement
Miller's motivation in concealing Libby's identity has now become a source of speculation and criticism. David Corn of The Nation asked, "Was she a martyr because of a mistake?" Columnist and blogger Arianna Huffington wrote that Miller's decision "defies credulity," further characterizing it as "laughable." Others have jokingly claimed that Miller wanted a release in time to watch Yankees play the Red Sox.
Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin offered two explanations:
"The most charitable explanation for Miller is that she somehow concluded that Libby wanted her to keep quiet, even while he was publicly -- and privately -- saying otherwise. The least charitable explanation is that going to jail was Miller's way of transforming herself from a journalistic outcast (based on her gullible pre-war reporting) into a much-celebrated hero of press freedom."
Many of her colleagues, like Froomkin, have claimed that Miller's decision was designed to redeem her reputation, which they believe was damaged by columns written before the Iraq war, in which Miller repeated administration claims that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
To some degree, Miller's stance had appeared to enhance her reputation among her peers. A number of notable journalists visited Miller in jail, and some even paid homage to her on newscasts throughout her incarceration.
Howard Kurtz, also of the Post, came to Miller's defense even after her source was revealed, writing: "Whether you agree with the New York Times correspondent or not-- and she is controversial, particularly because of her erroneous WMD reporting-- she did a courageous thing."
Originally published on Friday September 30, 2005.
