1. Anonymous says:

    The truth is very simple.

    Firing Judy sets her free to tell the truth about Sulzberger. Firing Keller sets him free to tell the truth about Sulzberger.

    Can’t have that. So the Times is locked into fulfillment of its new mission.

    …the New York Times…â€All the Lies We’ve Decided to Tell Youâ€

  2. Anonymous says:

    [apolgoies in advance for this slightly revised reposting; ew’s current post is a better match to our original response]

    we’ve only recently come across this site (via google) and particularly emptywheel — who we find lucid, thorough, compelling.

    but in the case of abramson, emptywheel may be slightly off the mark.

    it sounds implausible and would certainly try a cynic’s patience, but even at the times, editors can be honestly mistaken, credulous, deceived or intimidated into regrettable and/or untenable positions, especially when a certain publisher is perceived as a certain reporter’s confidante. benefactor. protector.

    blair/raines was a notorious though less consequential example of patronage unrequited. but miller/sulzberger is the penultimate narrative of patronage RUN AMOK, of misplaced trust that also contributed to an unnecessary war.

    current news media, particularly television, is infested with warlocks and witches of mass deception, our gender-neutral response to modo’s â€women of mass destruction.†however, miller thrived as the times post-9/11 uber-witch for one and only one reason.

    pinch started his career in the family business at the washington bureau roughtly coincident to miller’s start at the same (about a year following miller). miller, with better academic pedigree and the street smarts of a hustler qua loan shark, apparently befriended pinch (drinking buddy and more?) while somehow earning the latter’s seemingly eternal gratitude and [trust]. the nature of this ostensibly fraternal bond proved enduring enough to ensure mutual ascendance up the times ladder.

    that’s why it’s a mistake — in our opinion — to fixate on editorial mismanagement or accommodation as the [underlying determinant of] miller’s ability to wreak what she wrought. at least one times staffer [already and anonymously] fingered sulzberger as the real host-culprit for ebola judy [ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9787693/site/newsweek/ ]. [consider:] when your publisher literally acts as miller’s escort/bodyguard — as sulzberger did when miller emerged from prison — it’s not too difficult to imagine the limits of raines’, keller’s, abramson’s authority or autonomy to investigate — much less arrest the infection.

    that pinch too was ultimately used & discarded by miller in service to her needs — a prize-winning author fiercely protecting the credibility of her prize-winning book (â€germsâ€) using paper & employer to [preserve access to administration sources in order to] develop sequels and future works — only amplifies the tragedy of invested though undeserved trust. if keller admits the times placed employee loyalty above the trust of its readers, then sulzberger risked the family empire on one scheming, perhaps blackmailing sister, as only the borgias or medicis might appreciate such siblings.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Maybe Rumsfield signed something — you know some kind of self-destructing type of form, you know that looks like — a piece of paper… And maybe, you know that piece of paper that he signed? … Well, maybe it really did grant Judy a super-duper, top-secret, confidentially classified, special information authorization status. And … and maybe the NYT’s knew all about it! And … and … and, you know — that’s what they’re trying to hide and all because maybe like, you know they’re chagrined … or maybe not…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Lucid, thorough and compelling — a good EW summary… In a mild attempt to contribute to thoroughness per EW’s specs on Libby’s strange letter to Miller, a few quotes below. May not mean anything, but may be at least interesting.

    First, the refresher quote from Libby’s letter: â€Out west, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.â€

    In Joseph Wilson’s book, p.434 hardcover, he uses the â€cluster†word to refer to PNAC membership: â€President Bush could fundamentally change the direction of his administration by firing fewer than fifteen senior officials, beginning with those signatories of the Project for the New American Century and those currently holding government posts who signed a 1998 letter that urged President Clinton to wage war on Iraq. They are clustered at the National Security Council (NSC), in the Defense and State Departments, and within Vice President Cheney’s own parallel national security office.â€

    In a June 07, 2002 article in Newsweek, by Dan Ephron and Tamara Lipper, headlined â€Sharansky’s Quiet Role,†the following paragraph describes Wolfowitz and Sharansky walking through a forest on the way to a reception organized by Perle in a Colorado mountain town: â€Sharansky is hoping he had a hand in reshaping U.S. policy. At the conference, he says, he spoke privately with Cheney for more than an hour Saturday, two days before the Bush announcement. ’More than half our talk was devoted to what would be said in the speech,’ he says. Later Saturday, Sharansky and Wolfowitz were due at a dinner reception, but as an observant Jew, Sharansky said he couldn’t drive on the Sabbath. Instead, he and Wolfowitz trudged through a forest on foot to get to the dinner, their bodyguards in tow. ’It gave us a chance to talk about everything — Arafat, international terrorism, Iraq and Iran and, of course, Jewish history, our roots and so on,’ Sharansky says.â€

  5. Anonymous says:

    Sulzberger playing Charles Foster Kane (mimicking William Randolph Hearst)
    and telling Judy:

    â€â€¦ you provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war. …â€

  6. Anonymous says:


    Pinch’s ultimate responsibility for this doesn’t exonerate those who lie at his direction or to curry his goodwill. They are, after all, responsible for their own actions.