Warning: This is just armchair speculation, okay? Could be quite wrong.

[BurtWorm]

The warning comes from Jay Rosen in his latest PressThink post on the NY Times and Judy Miller. It seems plausible to me, but his warning should be heeded:


http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/


The New York Times is in a suspended state, editorially speaking. In fact, the entire organization—with the exception of a few lawyers, a few top executives, a few top editors, plus Jon Landman and his crew—is in the dark about Miller, uncertain of what a full investigation will find, unwilling to speak in the absence of knowledge now being gathered, fearful that the emerging story could be devastating to:

* the reputation of the New York Times for independence and honesty
* the stand on high principle that took Judy Miller to jail
* the positions of the people in charge (the editors, the publisher) who supported that stand as selfless and heroic
* whole portions of the Times news coverage, as happened with its faulty reporting on Saddam’s weapons.
* an intelligent reader’s confidence in the Times as reputable news source
* their own illusions about the New York Times as pillar of a free press

Which of these will be toppled by the end of the month? Which will be standing? No one knows. Any or all could be in ruins when the facts come out. Or none. This creates anxiety. (Again, I’m engaged in speculation.)

[MN ChimpH8R]

1. Miller was some sort of planted agent or co-conspirator

of the neo-cons. The higher-ups at the Times never bothered to investigate the truth of the things she was writing. This is going to blow up on the NYT in a very nasty way.

[cassiepriam]

4. It is beginning to look like she was more than sympathetic.

But on the WH payroll big time? While supposed to be working for
the paper.

[montanacowboy]

2. The NYT has lost all credibility

as far as I am concerned. Miller should be fired for her lies leading up to the war and for who knows what else she is into. And the paper putting her forth as some paragon of journalistic virtue, guardian of first amendment rights... bullshit - I call bullshit on the NYT

and I will NEVER pay to read their editorials - it will be a loss for me but I can find Krugman somewhere else

Screw the NYT - I do hope it brings them down. It will be a long way to rebuild - paper of record...my ass

[BurtWorm]

3. It's hard not to see Punch Jr. as the source of the paper's downfall.

All the worst scandals have happened on his watch, and they just keep getting worse and worse.

[orwell]

5. The NYT...

...is the mouthpiece for unchecked power. It always has been, at least in my lifetime. In fact, little more can be expected of it as it is the nation's largest, most widely read/quoted newspaper. As such, it must reflect the dominant paradigms of the society et large. As the US society is almost totally corrupt from years of elite propaganda and moral decay, why should we expect America's Paper to be any less.

[Beetwasher]

6. I Think He's Spot On

Miller was never a NYT employee, she was a propoganda plant for Bushco. and when it becomes evident, the NYT will be a barren shell of what it once was. It's sad really.

[northzax]

7. the Times, alas, is done

for a bit, I think. The Post is now the paper of record, the one that has embraced the internet and modern communications. The Times has retreated to lick its wounds, has sacrificed its influence, and its columnists influence, on the altar of mammon.

[sam sarrha]

8. what is one more cockroach in the Kitchen..?? ...no problem

:shrug:

[damntexdem]

9. Well, some of these things are not in question:

- the reputation of the New York Times for independence and honesty
- whole portions of the Times news coverage
- an intelligent reader’s confidence in the Times as reputable news source
- their own illusions about the New York Times as pillar of a free press

Those were already shot before Miller's jailing. And, yes, Miller's reporting had a lot to do with shooting them.

Moreover, any sensible person never fell for these canards:
- the stand on high principle that took Judy Miller to jail
- the positions of the people in charge (the editors, the publisher) who supported that stand as selfless and heroic

Anything that happens in Fitzgerald's indictments will just add to the large volumes of tarnish already on the NY Time's reputation.

But I subscribe and read it anyway. Hey, so I'm an enabler. So what?