The Judy feed is now aggregating blogs on the Judy Miller affair. Among the bloggers linked: Jay Rosen, Arianna Huffington, Powerline, Josh Marshall, Romenesko (oops, he’s not a blogger, is he?), Wizbang, Talk Left, David Weinberger, Dan Gillmor, Tim Porter, Mickey Kaus, Sisyphean Musings, Kos, Instapundit….

Len Apcar, editor of, says they’ll do more of this now that they’ve brought on Philippe Lourier of The Annotated Times to help aggregate blogs and other content.

This is a good step. The Times is now linking out to those linking in; the Washington Post has been doing likewise with Technorati help. That finally starts to get papers into the conversation, including conversations critical of them.

But like a blogger, I’ll see an envelope and push it.

First, it would be good to hear more voices we don’t often hear. All those blogs listed above are good. But as I put together my Judy Chronicles, I was hitting Technorati and PubSub and finding comment all over. (Though, egotist that I am, I’m happy to be in there, too.)

Second, the next step in this trend in linking should be to link to the stories a paper is not covering. That is the real value of the connected world.

At any rate, this couldn’t happen with a better story. Bravo.

(Insert full disclosure here. Oh, and I went to college with Len.)

: Oh, and, why not run quotes from these bloggers in the paper? As news or as op-ed.

: Which reminds me: The link I’m really waiting for is to a New York Times editorial on Judy.

: LATER: Romenesko points to lots of tough talk on Judy and The Times today, including former Timesman Alex Jones:

…I worked at the New York Times for nine years. I love the institution. I think it’s absolutely essential to our democracy…. I feel like any reporter owes it to their editor to level with them, especially when the credibility of the newspaper itself is at stake. And the idea that you would have a news organization that could not pull in a reporter and say not only who the source was but what are the circumstances of your relationship; what are the terms; what is your relationship with the administration — especially now that these questions are being raised — how can you operate a news organization?…

I think this is an extremely important moment for the New York Times. I think it’s a moral crossroads. I think that the New York Times, if I were the editors of the New York Times, I would appoint an internal group that I had complete confidence in to review Judy Miller’s reporting, her journalism.

And I would expect her and ask her and insist upon her cooperating and engaging that. And if she refused to engage it, if she refused to be frank, then that would essentially be a firing offense as far as I’m concerned. I think Judy Miller needs this just as much as the New York Times does. I mean, her credibility is at stake. And I think that she needs either a clean bill or she needs not to be representing the New York Times anymore.

I think that now she has taken on the sort of symbolic credibility that is going to be something that’s visited on all the editors and reporters and on the institution itself. And this may not really matter to the public at large. But within the world of journalism for the New York Times to lose its stature as the moral leader, as the standard bearer, that would be tragic.

Who are Miller’s defenders? Know any?

If Miller is going to do the noble thing for journalism, it’s not going to jail. It’s resigning.

: LATER: Arianna is, of course, even blunter, calling Miller a cancer on The Times.

  • John Davidson

    I worked at the New York Times for nine years. I love the institution. I think it’s absolutely essential to our democracy…


    So essential, I guess, that this “moral leader” (of who?!?!?) and “institution” (oh what a loaded, bloated, egotistical, vomit-inducing term that is) waited months to address fundamental questions about its own reporting.

    It’s simply sickening that a former Timesman like Jones refuses to call a spade a spade here. Why pull the punches, Alex? The lapse in journalism at the Times over the past few years is inexcusable and the fact that journalists are still giving deferential reverence to the Gray Lady with comments like Jones’ shows just how insular the upper echelons of journalism remains.

  • John,

    It’s a club…no one wants to get too far ahead of the herd for fear of the tables being turned on them. Prior to last week press organizations were showeing Miller with awards….it’s going to take a while for the gang to feel safe enough to give Judy a shove…

  • Angelos

    As pathetic as Judy’s water-carrying was, she has served a valuable purpose. Is it Cheney that’s going down? Looking like it.


  • Hey, here’s a crazy idea…Maybe the Times should, er, pay the bloggers it’s aggregating.

    Okay, I’ll go and lie down now. This was only a passing bout of insanity.

  • They’re not interested in bloggers as most of us are nobodies that write for free, instead of being media moghuls wanting to make cash.

    Even if they were, how would they choose the blogs to use. It would be the same top blog sites of which many have become far detached from the reasons why they started it.

  • Jay: Sorry but, come on: We lecture big media to listen to the people and quote and now you want to complain? What if they say you can’t quote them without paying them? Where would blogs be then? It can’t be a conversation when you want to talk over a toll booth.

  • arrrgh! Jeff! you keep missing the point! they’re only going to list those you listed because they are the Trusted Blogging Voices. The rest of us are just the rabble…we don’t count.

    When it comes to “citizen journalism” it’s the journalists who decided to become citizens that count…not the citizens who are trying to do the journalism thing without the degree. It’s kind of like trying to fly without wings.

  • Tish:
    No, arrggh to you. Read my post again. I said specifically that they need to get other voices than the obvious.

  • Yeah, there’s only 14,236 technorati posts on Judith Miller. How on Earth is an editorial publication supposed to glean which ones should be fit for notice? a question to the a-listers and z-listers.

  • I don’t really think any news agency can just pick up whatever appears on a blog until the blog’s nature has been established

    It’s unfortunate that a number of blogs have chosen the Rush route, pronouncing fables as if they were hards news … and as unfortunate that a large number of blogger/commenters then quote them constantly, again as if fables were a great substitute for reality. Why, mercy me! and these fables confirm firmly held beliefs of one sort or another.

    Just as a listener knows when they tune in to Fox ‘news’ that they will hear a certain spin, your blogger knows when he/she accesses Powerline or Kos just what direction their news reports will take.

    At least, we’re getting a track record on what to credit and what starts off discredited by its very source. The J.Miller case has been really stupefying for the number of posts that announced ‘news’ that simply didn’t exist, trying to color facts before they were ‘out’.

    Who supports her? Who knows? until we know what she has to say. The best aspect of her actions in the story to date is that Miller DID NOT out a CIA covert operative. For that I believe she deserves a bit of credit. So to that extent, Jeff, you can count me as a supporter. Even though she had learned the hard way not to put too much weight on her sources’ claims/news leads.

  • Jeff…I got your point about the need to reference new voices–that wasn’t what frustrates me. What frustrates me is that while you might be making this point, alot of the people doing the referecing do not feel the same way you do. Your viewpoint is rather unique (as I have seen from both We Media and BlogOn) Many are still on Old Media Think–reference the Voices of Authority because they are the ones that matter.

    The people you note are the ones who are considered “citizen journalists”–semantically speaking they are journalists who have become private citizens again and are perceived by a large swath of the populace as the ones who have the most wizened commentary on J. Miller

    There is more respect for journalists who take on the mantel of citzenry than there is for citizens who try to probe these types issues in their own unique ways. Take a look at this piece in the On-line Journalism Review to see what is being said/thought about what is now being called “grassroots journalism”

    The perception of “grassroots journalism” as having little to no merit isn’t limited to guys like Tom Grubisich. When it comes to matters pertaining to media and journalism, it seems that blog readers might rather hear commentary from former professionals than from their neighbors. The perception may be that the “good information” comes from those who used to be on the inside rather than from those who live next door.

    This makes it difficult for new voices to be heard.

    I know a bit about this because, at this moment, I’m a “citizen journalist” attempting to report on blog conferences from a grassroots perspective (at BlogOn, someone told me I was the only Real Blogger there–a plum postion indeed!) I go to events like BlogOn and We Media and the upcoming event at Berkman because I want to sythesize and convey conference info on a peer-to-peer level. I am trying to start conversation among those of us in the Long Tail because there isn’t much of it (although finding the right voice is difficult).

    Yet what is said at alot of conferences–among media people, among intellectuals/philosophers, and among marketers/p.r. folks–will eventually effect all of us who blog. Our freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and sense of who we are in the digital world will be shaped by what is being tossed around by people who have little to no contact with The People. And that, more than anything, frightens me.

    It should frighten–and motivate–alot more of us to cultivate and grow our voices in the blogosphere.

  • As the least “popular” blogger to earn a spot on that Times list, I’ll humbly represent the “rabble.”

  • at least there’s one of us!

  • Note the algorithm: “These posts are listed in order of popularity …”

    That means (overall) the popular faction of the Punditocracy, not the Z-listers.

    Note, per Jon Garfunkel, listing new voices would entail editorial judgment.

    Recursively, it’s the core problem all over again – either select by editors, or just get the loudest voices. Pick one.

  • Ravo

    Judith Miller Exonerates Bush Officials

  • From the above: ‘It’s not really a story about Bush officials Lewis Libby and Karl Rove and their conversations with the press. Rather, it’s a story about a CIA bureaucracy working to undermine the Bush administration through the media and cover up for its own mistakes.’

    There you go, it’s those undercover agents at fault, don’t you know. Undermining those earnest warriors in the WH who just want intelligence they can work with.

  • What still amazes me to this day was how Miller was ever allowed to write about Iraq (and the issues surrounding the story) for the Times by any editor. It’s been known for nearly fifteen years that she was far from objective regarding the region, ever since co-writing a book on Saddam Hussein with neocon nutjob Laurie Mylroie before the Gulf War. Instead of honest and truthful reporting, we got cheerleading for the PNAC agenda and shilling for crooked Chalabi. :(

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The Times’ Rather()

  • No matter how you slice it, those who were responsible (Bill Keller) and others for allowing Judy Miller to be a prima donna (self-described Miss Run Amok) have no excuse. Mr. Keller’s belated explanation was nothing but a lame effort to redeem himself. Too late and too little. He ought to resign.