Geraldo's Return, Part Deux

Because you can never really have enough Geraldo Rivera, I've included some quotes that I didn't have room for in today's wide-ranging profile of the moustachioed journalism super hero. (This shirtless shot is the scariest thing I could find to post on this All Hallow's Eve).

On bringing the New York Times to heel regarding its allegation he nudged a rescue worker out of camera range:
"The New York Times was willing to engage in this ridiculous charge of the light brigade, just because they didn't want to give in. All people have to know is that I have absolutely given up on being the whipping boy. I will come after anyone I consider lying about me. I will tear their hearts out. I've taken enough of people's misrepresentation."

On why people still believe he changed his name from Jerry Rivers to his current, more ethnic-sounding moniker:
"It's absolutely false. It's been disproven. It's easy - It gives them a one up thing on me. They don't have to compete with me. They can dismiss me. they don't have to worry about me having bigger balls than they have. I do what I do. There's the audience of the in crowd and there's everybody else. and everybody else is so more numerous than the in-crowd. When I'm with the GIs in any context, or uniformed personnel, or first responders anywhere anytime. As long as they see me on television, which means most of the English and Spanish-speaking world, I have a great advantage over everybody."

On why he is the natural descendant of legendary TV newsman Edward R. Murrow:
"The Katrina coverage clearly was -- you've got Good Night and Good Luck, the Clooney movie, the Edward R. Murrow movie, which celebrates that icon in the business. it's interesting that the Katrina coverage hearkened back to that. And I think I've been part of that arc. It became unfashionable for a time in between. I think I've been true to it. And you look at the work done by Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper -- you see that fine tradition resurrected. I think I've been true to that."

On the future of network TV news:
"I don't think (network evening newscasts) are doing it that badly. I may be in the minority here, but if you only have 22 minutes and you have to world wide resources of these outfits...I think it's a shame CBS never merged with CNN, ABC never got their cable thing that Roone (Arledge) dreamed of... News shouldn't have to be about profit. News should be about public service. The bigger and richer the entity that producing it, the better for it. the more they can afford bureaus and a staff required to be there 24/7 for a world audience. I'm all for it.''

On how it felt to see the National Association of Hispanic Journalists -- to whom he donated $100,000 last year -- demand a correction from the New York Times during Nudgegate:
"What I did say was, what was eye-opening to the New York Times is that there were different groups that perceive me differently than the New York Times did. The New York Times has its standards, which I maintain is kind of a country club. They're all living as neighbors on the upper west side of Manhattan. That cocktail party circuit and they were shocked that this newspaper in the city they seek to serve, that there were huge blocks that didn't see me the same way they did. I was relieved that it all came out now, because one of my fears was that it would be the New York Times that would write the obituary of record when the time came.''

Media Bias In the Eye of the Beholder

Cartoonist Mike Lukovich said he worked 13 hours to create this cartoon, which contains the name of each of the 2,000 soldiers killed during the latest war in Iraq.

Presumably, the image was meant to speak to the various public officials and decisionmakers who got us into Iraq in the first place. But this cartoon could be addressed to the press, as well.

As the CIA leak prosecution progresses, the only institution that comes off looking bad as the Bush administration is the press -- which tied itself in knots to honor confidentiality pledges extended to officials trying to place stories which would discredit a high-profile critic of the President's war rationale by publicizing details about his CIA operative wife.

Imagine famed Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein agreeing to go to jail to protect G. Gordon Liddy, and you have an idea how topsy turvy the press' role in this case has become.

Which is why I remain mystfied by the one criticism that I keep hearing, through email and from readers in person, every time I talk about media issues:

That the mainstream news media, and the St. Petersburg Times in particular, has a liberal bias.

This sentiment is the primary response I got to a story I wrote for today's Business section suggesting that newspapers are dying because increasing numbers of people want to get the information they contain a different way.

This email was typical: "You apparently don't see how dishonest you are... because of your liberal mindset you are "stuck on stupid", for some reason you don't get the message that you can no longer lie to the people with impunity because of the internet where you can be checked on your "facts". You really do think that most of us are really stupid.. and there are a lot, but not all of us are the morons.

The same goes on your reporting on Iraq... everything is BAD! You failed to report the historic approval of the Constitution... yet dwelled on the 2000 soldiers killed in 3 years! That is why we treat you with contempt and won't even spend .25 for your papers anymore. Think toothpaste... if people hate the flavor, the toothpaste co. would start by changing the flavor."

Now, this guy definitely sounds like he's sipped a little too much of Rush Limbaugh's Kool Aid, if you know what I mean.

But it is a sentiment I hear often -- including during a talk Saturday at the Times Festival of Reading. Unfortunately, this passionate belief falls short when I ask for specific examples. Often, these critics who have railed against the MSM (mainstream media, for those of you who don't do acronyms well) don't have specific stories or coverage patterns to cite.

My new pal Craig Crawford has an explanation for this. In his new book, Attack the Messenger, Craig lays out the premise that politicians have successfully turned the public against the new media by accusing it of bias -- aided by a powerful consevative-oriented alternative media -- in the process, invalidating reports which may harm their interests. (I explore these thoughts a bit with him in an interview here).

While I agree with Craig's analysis, I also think there's something else going on here.

I think people are confusing the MSM's focus on pursuing social justice, which is an important part of our journalism DNA, with rampant liberalism.

We focus on social justice issues in our work, which means reporting on civil rights issues, worker's rights issues, government waste issues, government effectiveness issues, poverty, crime, police brutality and much more. John Roberts, CBS correspondent and weekend anchor, described it to me simply: standing up for the little guy.

But to an anti-affirmative action, pro-business, anti-welfare, law and order conservative, that kind of reporting might feel an awful lot like liberal bias.

Truth is, MSM is biased toward the right as well, when it comes to economic issues. We lionize profitable corporations and successful CEOs. We tout the advantages of globalism and free trade agreements, regardless of how they may hurt rank and file workers. And we often safeguard the economic interests of the conglomerates which own us -- whether its ABC's Good Morning America prominently featuring stories on the ABC comedy hit Desperate Housewives or Time magazine prominently featuring an interview with Colin Powell after paying him six figures to excerpt his new book.

Media critic Eric Alterman talks about this a fair amount in his book, What Liberal Media. And while I'm not sure I believe you can totally discount the individual attitudes of reporters the way he does, I think he makes a potent point that the perspective of media owners such as News Corp's Rupert Murdoch and the structure of how media operates can tilt reports toward conservative issues.

Alterman, for example, cites research by Geoffrey Nunberg showing that the average liberal politican is 30 percent more likely to be identified with a partisan label than a conservative. Those of us who work in newsrooms know that editors are used to hearing complaints from conservatives over how they are identified; since liberals don't complain about it so much, we are far less circumspect about when we label them. And Nunberg has even suggested the MSM itself has helped perpetuate the liberal bias story. (so much for Bernard Golbdberg's oft-quoted contention that conservatives are labelled more often).

And so the blame game continues. And while those who know the complex truth push simplistic answers aimed at building their own constituencies, the public is caught between an advocacy press which tells them what they want to hear, and a profit-oriented press, which tells them what makes the most money.

Ain't a free press just grand?

What do you think of all this? And if you're going to call me a commie, pinko, liberal-loving tool of the left wing, can you at least try to make an original point while doing so? 'Preciate it.

Big Media = Big Disappointment

As news spreads today that vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the man in CIA leak case investigator Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment crosshairs, I'm struck by a curious mix of satisfaction and disappointment.

Satisfaction, because the nation has finally learned what I've always suspected -- that the Bush administration has hyped up the cause for war in Iraq by using the press to spread bogus information and punish anyone who spoke up against them.

(Leaked upon CIA agent Valerie Plame and husband/Bush critic Joe Wilson)

Disappointment, because it wasn't the nation's journalists who finally got to the bottom of this.

Instead, it took a leak-proof prosecutor with a reputation for hard-nosed, apolitical investigations to drag the truth out of big media bigwigs such as Robert Novak, Tim Russert, Matt Cooper and, yes, Judith Miller. Bamboozled by subjects who sought to hide their true motives behind off-the-record comments, these journalists -- Miller and Novak especially -- will have a lot to answer for, once the dust clears.

(The leak case's Mutt and Jeff -- Miller and Cooper)

What are the lessons so far?

1) Anonymous sources, accepted as the way of the world in Washington journalism, must be curtailed more than they are now.

It is a telling sign that even the stories on the leak investigation, which have slowly detailed the danger of relying too heavily on anonymous sources in political reporting, are filled with facts provided by confidential sources. One recent story last week by the Washington Post's crack reporter Jim VandeHei, citing Fitgerald's focus on Cheney's office, featured no less than 14 separate attributions to anonymous sources without a single on-the-record source (fortunately, St. Petersburg Times editors passed on publishing the story).

Anyone who has worked in journalism long knows sophisticated sources ask to go off-the-record like they're asking for sugar with their coffee. Tales abound that some Washington sources have taken to asking that their comments be attributed to someone else, and arrangements like Miller's agreement to cite Libby anonymously by referencing a job he held years ago, are more common that we'd all hope.

2) As the Washington media's incestuous relationship with its sources is laid bare, it's plain we have a lot of public trust to regain. I don't expect a lot of public sympathy for a federal Shield Law giving journalists a special, First Amendment right to conceal sources from prosecutors, if we can't demonstrate we're acting repsonsibly with the freedoms we already have.

3) Though this may sound technical, journalists must be more specific about the circumstances under which they will protect a sources identity. The core of the journalists' involvement was honoring a pledge to protect sources who had been given blanket promises.

It is time for reporters to make clear how far they will go to protect sources' identities; I suggest journalists agree to protect confidentiality until they face certain jail time on contempt charges, or unless the source lies to them. Some Times reporters already present that kind of conditional identity protection to off-the-record sources, and given federal prosecutors' zeal for taking journalists to court, it seems a realistic step.

What do you think? Are there other lessons to be learned from this ongoing Washington political/legal/journalism drama?

Harriet Miers: Dethroned by Right Wing Media

Even as Republican operatives jump before every available microphone to swear that Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supeme Court today to protect the President's executive priviledge or heal the administration's growing rift with the right wing, let this humble media critic suggest you don't believe a word of it.

What really undid Miers, as many pundits are pointing out today, was the same right-wing focused media echo chamber that made a star of her boss.

Forget the fact that Miers current exit strategy was laid out by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer last week. A sample line: "Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents."

It's obvious now the Miers nomination was hammered into oblivion by criticism from a variety of conservative-friendly media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page to Rush Limbaugh's radio show and media harpie Ann Coulter's columns.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, laid out the way conservatives picked apart Miers in the media through a study called Media on Miers: Overruled By Right. Among their observations, after analyzing 305 evaluations of Miers which appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC and the A Section of the New York Times:

(CMPA's Media Director Matt Felling, a fun interview and the only white guy I know cool enough to be conversant with the full discography of New Edition, BBD, Ralph Tresvant, Johnny Gill and Bobby Brown.)

1) Three quarters of Miers evaluations came from Republican officials or conservatives, with 70 percent of GOP officials supporting her, while 78 percent of all other conservatives opposing it.

2) The New York Times, long considered a liberal bastion by conservatives, featured less Miers criticism than TV news. About 53 percent of evaluations in Times stories were positive, while conservatives outside the GOP criticized Miers by a 6 to 1 margin.

3) Barely half of Miers' evaluations in media were positive, compared to 69 percent of references to recently-confirmed chief justice John Roberts.

One of the last straws may have been a conservative group's announcement that they had created an anti-Miers TV ad and spent $250,000 to begin airing it Wednesday, funded by a coalition including high-profile Bush supporters such as David Frum and Linda Chavez.

Even conservative icon Limbaugh took aim at Miers and the Bush administration -- barely mollified by a later visit from Vice President Dick Cheney -- saying, "The main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.”

Now its time for the other shoe to drop. Emboldened by their success in derailing Miers, extreme conservatives will have even higher expectations for the right wing bonafides of the next nominee. (As Limbagh pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week, "This is no crackup (of the conservative movement). It's a crackdown."

Makes you wonder who really runs the nation's media structure, don't it?

Rosa Parks R.I.P.: Who Cared and Who Didn't?

Usually, it's a game I don't like to play.

Among journalists of color, I've come to call it: The Appreciation Game.

It is the inevitable grousing, story-counting and scrutiny that comes when a big news event breaks which is important to black folks. As media coverage unfolds, we ask the pointed question: Did white-owned media care enough?

Fortunately, civil rights icon Rosa Parks, who died at age 92 last night, fared better than other recent subjects. I specifically recall the Millions More March (which I was forced to watch on C-SPAN while the cable newschannels gorged themselves on Iraqi election speculation) and recently deceased Ebony/Jet founder John Johnson, whose appreciations trickled out over weeks as editors slowly realized how important he was.

Checking out the first 111 daily newspaper front pages displayed by the Newseum, Parks' death is front-page news in 84 of them (to see one of the coolest tributes, check out the Montgomery Advertiser's eight page spread online).

Ten newspapers relegated her passing to a front-page picture referring to an inside obituary, including the Washington Times and Bradenton Herald. And 17 papers featured no story on their covers at all, ranging from Florida papers understandably caught up in Hurricane Wilma recovery (Miami Herald, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post) to publications that I'm hoping just got caught behind deadline (Washington Examiner, Arkansas Democrat).

The deluge of tributes today have been a fitting send off for a tough, principled woman who took a historic stand but never chased the spotlight and seemed to value a low-key life.

As I said on Ed Gordon's NPR show News and Notes today (shameless plug in full effect!), at a time when even the Runaway Bride is chasing book and TV movie deals, Parks was a refreshing reminder of a humble, average citizen who made a historic difference just by taking a stand in her own community.

As the flowery, overblown appreciations rightfully begin to fill the mediasphere, I think its worthy to note her most important example: That an average person, sticking to their own strong morals, can change the country and the world.

Talk about the American dream.

UPDATE:

Just wanted to note that Infinity Radio finally fessed up to what we already knew: That David Lee Roth, Adam Carolla, Jimmy Kimmel and magician Penn Jillette are among the lineup of famous loudmouths recruited to replace the King of All Media, Howard Stern.

Once again, Stern gets to kick back and chortle while Infinity assembles a suicidal strategy based on throwing a bunch of radio newcomers and also-rans at his loyal audience -- a move likely to only encourage them to buy satellite radio, once he moves there in January.

Hurricane Madness Round 2

Is the difference between the men and the boys reporting hurricane coverage whether they wear a cap...

....or not?

As expected, Coop and his storm chasin' colleagues swung into action Sunday night as Hurricane Wilma slammed into South Florida as a Category 3 hurricane. Also as expected, correspondents often looked foolish, risking their safety to stand in stiff winds excitedly pointing out fallen trees, broken windows and minor flooding. Joined by colleague John Zarrella on Marco Island, Cooper continued the rain-in-the-face shtick that began to wear thin during Rita while documenting Wilma's effects.

See what I wrote in the Times about this bit of showboating here.

Local TV stations blew out their national morning show programming for wall-to-wall Wilma coverage through noon, while Tampa Bay's National Public Radio station WUSF-89.7 FM offered a few expanded local reports alongside the network stuff -- with a few glitches as the signal went down for brief periods. WSTP-Ch. 10 seemed to be the last local station in the pool Sunday night, running infomercials at 3 a.m. while competitors already were presenting live reports.

By morning, however, WFTS-Ch. 28's Don Germaise seemed the only local guy dumb enough to ape Cooper's act (a WFLA reporter was ordered out of the storm by sensible managers after offering a similar report earlier), standing in the winds which raked Naples this morning to prove that, yes indeed, gusts were strong and the rain was slashing. Elsewhere, correspondents for WTSP and WTVT were standing in St. Petersburg and Pass-a-Grille's much safer confines, noting how lucky we were to miss the worst of Wilma.

Someday, viewers will tire of the Hurricane porn TV reporters offer by standing in gale force winds shouting the obvious (and no, praying they get hit by something still doesn't justify the voyeurism).

For me, the fallout from Katrina's awful aftermath includes a diminished patience for the usual storm hyperbole; too bad the experience didn't breed similar respect from the reporters dominating our TV screens today.

TV News Finds a New Low -- Again

I know it's beyond passe to complain about the trivialization of TV news.

But....

It does seem were headed for a new low, thanks to Les Moonves, ABC News, Ryan Seacrest and the mad scramble to find new (a.k.a. younger) news viewers.

For me, the dread started way back in August, when the New York Times Magazine published a profile of CBS TV president Les Moonves where the man at the helm of revamping the most legendary news broadcast in television talked about adding The Daily Show's Jon Stewart or women in lingerie to spice up the newscast.

As somebody who sparred with Les quite a bit in my TV critic days, I have loads of respect for the guy who turned the Murder She Wrote network into the CSI/Survivor network. But one thing Les -- a hard-driving, old school TV showman with an actor's charisma and ad salesman's morals -- doesn't do well is news programming (even if his trophy wife is Early Show newsreader Julie Chen).

Bet the house that whatever he comes up with to replace Dan Rather's CBS Evening News will only hasten the demise of the news division's credibility.

Next, came ABC's announcement Monday of the trio who would replace the venerated Ted Koppel anchoring the network's sterling late-night news show, Nightline.

White House correspondent Terry Moran (center) has the most journalism chops, followed by Cynthia McFadden (right), who has done well covering legal issues but made her bones covering O.J. Simpson's overhyped trial. And then there's Martin Bashir, the guy behind the ultra-exploitive Living With Michael Jackson special, who embodies the kind of sleazily unethical, celebrity-driven journalism Nightline once seemed to stand against.

Other details of the revamp include broadcasting from a Times Square studio, featuring multiple stories in an hour, and rarely featuring the three new anchors together on any one broadcast. In other words, turning a special, in-depth news half-hour into a carbon copy of every other newsmagazine on television.

And now we have what may be the ultimate indignity: Ryan Seacrest on CNN?

(He's kickin' it here with former American Idol screecher Diana DeGarmo)

Scheduled to sub for Larry King tonight (interviewing his bestest bud, Ashlee Simpson), Seacrest is reportedly being positioned as heir to the multiple bypassed, suspenders-wearing interviewer -- with lattitude to book his own guests and a personal connection with King that goes back a while.

Now, no one will confuse King with Edward R. Murrow (my fave King memory: watching the notoriously under-prepared interviewer confuse the names of everyone in the cast of Friends and ER, in separate interviews, when both shows were the two hottest programs on television).

(mug shot from 1971, when King was nabbed for stealing from a business partner)

But CNN seemed to get it right by positioning stellar interviewer Bob Costas as his substitute. At least, until they tried to make Costas cover the Natalee Holloway nonsense, and he walked.

Now, they've turned to a guy who couldn't keep his own syndicated interview show afloat longer than a few months, and whose interview chops consist mostly of sticking a mike in front of breathless American Idol contestants.

It's all about TV executives looking at a steadily aging news audience and wondering how to get more of those young eyeballs Madison Avenue loves so much.

This is CNN?

As Wilma Turns to Florida, So Does the TV Anchor Nonsense

What's the only thing worse than knowing a Category 5 hurricane might be heading for you?

The realization that, if it does come, Anderson, Shep and Brian are sure to follow.

After years of El Nino fed near-misses and the storms that raked Florida this year and last, you think we'd be used to all the salivating by TV news types when a system looks determined to turn St. Petersburg into an island.

Still, it was a bit unsettling to see how excited CNN's Anderson Cooper got Wednesday at the prospect of Hurricane Wilma slamming the Sunshine State back to the Stone Age.

Cooper was broadcasting from New Orleans, where you get the sense he and other anchors are subtly, ashamedly longing for the days when widespread disaster and ineffectual politicians made covering hurricane news a dashing, vital affair.

It didn't take long for TV to turn the life-saving gravitas of Katrina coverage into shameless photo-ops of Matt and Katie helping President Bush build a wall which might end up in some hurricane victim's home someday. Here is where TV news is most dangerous; not when there's real news, but when there isn't.

Consider poor NBC correspondent Michelle Kosinski, a veteran of the search for Natalee Holloway, who let producers talk her into reporting on flooding in New Jersey while sitting in a canoe. That alone should be the punchline, but it turned into high comedy when two guys waded into the shot, proving that Kosinski was sitting in ankle-deep water while telling tales of widespread flooding.

"I wish I had said right off the bat, just so it was totally clear, 'Katie, Matt, we’re in a foot of water here, but out further it’s waist-deep and the current is strong,'' Kosinski told the New York Observer, courageously blaming her producers for making her do the shot in shallow water.

This is may be our next big media problem: when TV news gets used to disaster. If sending Shep and Anderson out to stand in hurricane force winds isn't enough, what comes next? This time, it's Kosinski in a mildly embarassing example of what happens when sleep-deprived TV crews think a little too far outside the box. But if Wilma really does come to town, I'm less afraid of the havoc she'll bring than what Geraldo Rivera might do to really send a message to that woman at the New York Times.

One consolation: If the TV news types are waiting for a Katrina-level meltdown in the wake of Wilma, then they don't know our Governor Jeb -- the Bush brother with a brain -- very well.

(Can you guess which one is the loser here?)

One look at Jeb spouting evacuation instructions in Spanish and they'll know: They're in a state that knows how to handle its natural disasters. Here's hoping they don't wind up creating any media-fed catastrophes instead.

Poor Pitiful Bill: The Factor's in a Funk

I know Newsday TV writer Verne Gay is a cool dude and a crack writer, so I'll forgive him for today's, um, charitable piece on Fox News firebrand Bill O'Reilly's laments about being the target of death threats and criticism.

(And not just because it features a quote from me about my long-standing friction with him)

(O'Reilly accuser Andrea Mackris)

In Verne's piece, O'Reilly ruminates on the 12-month anniversary of his infamous sexual harassment lawsuit (which officially fell Thursday), noting that each day he faces a mountain of paparrazi, must have a third party present when he talks on the telephone and spends "an enormous amount of money protecting myself against evil." He even tantalizes us with talk of the R-word: retirement.

Of course, some would say such problems are to be expected for a TV bully who trades in stereotyping, slanted arguments and unfair rhetoric to make his points (But what do I know? I'm "a dishonest, racially motivated correspondent writing for perhaps the worst newspaper in the country.")

My own disagreements with O'Reilly date back years to a withering critique I wrote of an hourlong primetime special he developed for the Fox broadcast network, "The Corruption of the American Child."

(O'Reilly with members of the Insane Clown Posse)

I sat, dumbfounded, during a press conference where he promised to go after shock rockers Marilyn Manson, the Posse and "black rappers" -- as if they weren't even deserving of specific mention. Upon viewing the special, I found O'Reilly working his typical blend of outrage and fear, coating legitimate concerns about the coarsening of pop culture with a thick layer of barely-veiled racial politics and slanted arguments. (Since the special aired on the home of such wholesome programming as Temptation Island and Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire, it was hard to gauge the impact).

This is O'Reilly's stock in trade. He needs big and not-so-big enemies to fuel his image as an embattled crusader for his audience. And because his ego is so large, even when a regional newspaper such as the St. Petersburg Times dares to resist his viewpoint, we are accused of corruption, ineptness and worse.

Fortunately, I found the last time O'Reilly attacked me that many of his fans are more open minded than the host. After checking out the piece which inspired his vitriol, about half of the 30 or so emails I received said I made legitimate points and appreciated my views.

Not so for O'Reilly, whose No-Spin Zone most often equals a no-dissent zone, where those who disagree are not only wrong but derided as seriously flawed human beings. (a suggestion for O'Reilly, who also complains he wishes the press would "stop the viciousness"; perhaps he should take his own advice)

One of the best results of the current focus on hard news that has come from cable TV's scramble to keep up with disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, has been the marginalization of pundits such as O'Reilly, who seem to engage us most when everyday news just isn't exciting enough.

Still, as much as O'Reilly grouses about walking away from it all, it's hard to imagine him actually stepping out of the limelight. Bad pennies have a way of always turning up.

As always, I welcome your comments.

The New York Times Finally Comes Clean -- Mostly

For the nation's media critics, it's like Christmas in October: The New York Times has finally published its much-promised, exhaustive account of reporter Judith Miller's role in the Valerie Plame case and the circumstances behind Miller's decision to spend 85 days in jail rather than reveal her sources to prosecutors.

And as many of us expected, it is a near-6,000-word story that leaves Miller looking less like a First Amendment hero and more like an out-of-control creature of official Washington with a habit of geting too close to government sources. Miller is shown in full control of a legal strategy which cost her newspaper millions and decisively eliminated journalists' right to withhold sources from federal prosecutors in one of the nation's most important courts.

Worse, the Times account doesn't answer the big question; more on that later.

To its credit, when the Gray Lady finally did step up, she did so without fear or favor. Editor Bill Keller comes off as badly as Howell Raines did during the Jayson Blair scandal, shown declining to ask Miller detailed questions about her conversations with vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby when prosecutors subpoeanaed her in late 2004. Indeed, Keller didn't tell his own reporters who Miller's source was, and when those reporters did learn his identity, the newspaper didn't publish the name until Miller decided to testify before the grand jury last month and was released from jail. Sunday's story also says Keller "did not entirely step aside" from supervising reporters' work on the scandal, while also participating in strategy sessions on Miller's defense.

Other Plame-related stories, including a piece developed by its Washington bureau on the role of Vice President Dick Cheney's aides in the leak case, were not published by the Times. The newspaper had a story on Miller's release from jail ready at 2 p.m. that day, but didn't publish it on their Web site until after the Philadelphia Inquirer did. And the newspaper's Washington bureau chief admitted Keller stifled coverage of the leak case for fear of antagonizing prosecutors or exposing Miller's source while she was in jail.

The Times emerges as an institution at war with itself, tied in knots by managers seeking to protect a strong-willed reporter on one end, and cover an investigation which has consumed much of Washington for two years on the other. The issue has grown so big, even NBC's The West Wing has a similar storyline.

(Us West Wing fanatics learned tonight that Communications Director Toby Zeigler is the Bartlett administration's Scooter Libby)

The paper notes Keller waited nearly a year to issue an editor's note criticizing some of the paper's too-credulous coverage on weapons of mass destruction leading to the Iraq War (often led by Miller), though he had removed Miller from reporting on Iraq and weapons issues within weeks of taking over as executive editor.

Despite assurances from Times executives that Miller would cooperate in their attempt to excavate this sad affair, the Times own story noted "in two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes."

And the bad news for Miller here is massive. She says she pressed to write a story on Plame and was told no; the Washington bureau chief at the time said it didn't happen. She admits in her own story about her testimony, agreeing to describe Libby anonymously as a former Capitol Hill staffer in a story to disguise where he actually worked. And when asked by an editor in 2003 whether a White House official told her of Plame's identity, she said no, despite now admitting three separate meetings with Libby in which Plame came up.

Miller also has trouble with her memory. She can't remember why she wrote Valerie Flame in one notebook page and Victoria Wilson on another. She also can't remember who else she discussed the Plame issue with, though she knows she did speak with other people. Experienced reporters know that it isn't unusual to write things in your notebook and not recall their origin weeks, months or years later; still, the lack of specifics given th idea that she had hoped to write a story, is troubling.

Some pundits have already called for Miller's firing and an apology from Keller.

And more questions remain. Who did tell her Valerie Plame's name, and why can't Miller remember who it was (isn't that like Bob Woodward not remembering who Deep Throat is?)

Why won't Miller talk fully about her grand jury testimony or dealing with editors, even with reporters from her own paper? How close was she to Libby, and did that distort her journalism or her choices in refusing to testify? Was she untruthful with her editors, and if so, what will the Times do about it? And why is the Society of Professional Journalists giving her its First Amendment Award with so many unanswered questions left hanging?

Ironically, the public's last hope for full disclosure may be whatever report prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald finally releases. That we have come to this in a scandal involving so many high-level Washington journalists, remains a troubling development.

Those of us who care about all journalists' crediblity are just worried that the nation's Paper of Record has given readers like yourself another reason to distrust us.

What do you think?