Judy's Vanity
The bloggers were without editing, without a way for people to understand what was good, what was well reported–to distinguish between the straight and the slanderous. Things would get instantly picked up, magnified, and volumized. . . . I was appalled, not by the blogs–that would be like getting appalled at the Industrial Revolution–but by my colleagues, who believed what they read on the blogs.
So says Judy Miller, a reporter famous for her ability to elude the editor’s pen, or even the editor’s authority. A reporter also famous for magnifying (and probably volumizing, whatever that means) discredited nuggets of intelligence on the front page of the nation’s leading newspaper. So she says in a Vanity Fair article that paints a rosy picture of the events surrounding Judy’s own involvement in the Plame Affair.
There are already several good accounts of this article. Arianna delivers her rebuttal here. E&P’s Greg Mitchell provides a good overview here. Larisa joins the fun here. And I know Jane is working on it, because she kindly shared her copy with me, stay tuned for it on the new FDL site. I’m actually going to take two stabs at the article. Today, I’ll review the kind portrayal Judy’s good friend Marie Brenner painted of Judy’s involvement, which obscures all the remaining questions. And sometime in the next few days, I’ll look at the purpose such obscureness serve–a very sloppy claim that the Plame case is all just an attack on journalism.
Which Came First, Daou's Triangle, or the Egg?
I’m not sure I buy it.
Lefty blogosphere is agog over Peter Daou’s latest assessment of Democratic woes. And while I absolutely agree with Daou’s description of the predominance of a Republican narrative…
Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media:What’s the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush’spresidency? What’s the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, theSwift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democratsand terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administrationscandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It’s this: thetraditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have becomethe chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bushstorylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.
There’s a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolatednews stories may be slanted against the administration. What I’mdescribing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press ofdeep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talkingpoints that paint a picture of reality for the American public thatfavors the right and tarnishes the left.
…I don’t buy the picture of media responsibility Daou paints.
