A Response To The Washington Post's Defence Of Judith Miller
Washington Post
To the Editor:
Richard Cohen's defense of Judith Miller's principles ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101585.html ) (Aug. 2) defends the New York Times reporter from attacks on her honest mistakes, and suggests that other reporters and
the Bush Administration made honest mistakes as well. But this completely misses the point being made by those who
maintain that Miller's is not a good case on which to build a defense of journalists' rights, as well as the point being
made by critics of Bush's drive to war.
We maintain that there is compelling evidence of dishonesty by both Bush and Miller, that Miller is not a journalist,
and that Miller's sources are not sources.
For the case against Bush, see, among other things, your June 28, 2005, front page article on the Downing Street Memos,
which -- after massive public pressure -- was printed about a week after your editorial claiming that those documents
"add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." Known to whom? Clearly you can't answer "Judith Miller" and
continue to defend her work.
For the case against Miller and her sources, begin with these considerations:
Miller made clear through her writing and affiliations that she favored an attack on Iraq. She's been promoted as a
speaker for the Middle East Forum, which advocated attacking Iraq. She's published books widely criticized as
anti-Muslim.
Miller formally accepted US Military censorship of her articles for the New York Times, violating a standard of
journalism at least as significant as that of loyalty to honest sources.
Miller used as a primary source for her horror stories about WMDs a man with a conviction for embezzlement, a reputation
for fraud, a publicly stated interest in moving the United States to attack Iraq, and knowledge of Iraq limited by his
not having lived there for four decades.
Miller took the bizarre step of reporting on claims that WMDs had actually been found while making fairly clear that the
US military had not allowed her to actually SPEAK TO her "source."
Miller's articles routinely present claims that support militarism as unquestionable or confirmed, although they come
from a single source with an obvious interest in the story.
If the above considerations are not enough, consider that the source(s) whom Miller is now protecting are known now
(even, presumably, to Judith Miller) to have been engaged not in whistleblowing but in attacking a man who was blowing a
whistle on their fraudulent justifications for war. Protecting dishonest sources whose motivation was not to educate a
democratic public but to send its young people to kill and die for a lie is not journalistic ethics. It may be mafia
ethics or Tom Delay ethics, but it's not journalism.
Of course we must protect the right of journalists to confidential sources. And of course that must include journalists
whom I don't like. But stenography for military officials is not journalism, and when it masquerades as journalism it
becomes extremely damaging.
Would Bush have gone ahead with his war without Judith Miller? Sure. But that excuses neither her nor anyone else who
assisted him, and Richard Cohen's suggestion that it does raises questions about your general grasp of ethics.
Sincerely,
David Swanson
*************
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street (www.AfterDowningStreet.org), a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of
America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a
newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004
presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as
Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a
Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.