As usual, if you want the best information about what’s going on in Novak-Plame-gate, the last place you should look is America’s paper of record, the New York Times. The NYT’s humiliation continues in this morning’s papers, where the Washington Post has more information about what Karl Rove was asked about in the grand jury yesterday, and about the role of NYT reporter Judith Miller, than does the NYT itself.
In a potentially significant development, the WaPo reports that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has advised Miller that she will not be charged with any crime – if true, that eliminates the fantasies of those who thought Miller might herself be subject to a perjury or obstruction indictment, or even swept up in the Espionage Act for passing information she obtained from sources like Ahmed Chalabi to Karl Rove and/or Scooter Libby. The WaPo also says that Miller is cooperating with NYT reporters preparing a large story on Miller’s and the NYT’s role in the whole thing, contrary to some previous reports suggesting that Miller had refused to cooperate and might resign from the paper as early as Monday.
The NYT can go a long way toward rehabilitating itself if it does a creditable job on the big "what did Judy know and when did she know it" story that is expected to appear in tomorrow’s paper. But if the story reeks of influence from the paper’s top brass, which has consistently and unaccountably remained steadfast in its unwavering support of Miller even while the newsroom reportedly has been close to open revolt over Miller’s role in the scandal (and, more broadly, her now-discredited reporting on Iraq), it’s hard to see who is going to continue to treat the NY Times as a serious news source. They lost the conservatives long ago, and if they lose liberals and moderates who want to like them but who are upset about the Iraq reporting and who want something approaching the truth to come out about Miller and the Plame scandal, who is left?
