On Thursday October 7, Dame Judy (aka Judith Miller of the New York Times) was ordered to jail by a federal judge. Her crime: refusal to name a source in the ongoing investigation over who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. For her part, Miller has implied that she’s willing to do time. Now there's an image—we wonder if she’ll be allowed to wear fancy scarves in the Big House. No doubt she will quickly become a cause celebre in the world of journalism.

But, as anybody who has followed Miller’s adventures knows, this is hardly her principal crime. The fact that she’s in trouble again reminds us that Miller was never held accountable for really, really getting things wrong in the run-up to the Iraq War—and that she and her paper may have helped launch a conflict based on bad information.

WMDs, anyone?

In short, Miller penned some of the most egregious newspaper stories before the invasion. It's fair to say that she became a sort of WMD cheerleader, whether she wanted to or not, by refusing to check the “facts” that lent her stories a breathless urgency, and by believing and printing untruths about Iraq’s WMD program. Bush administration officials regularly checked in with her front-page reports, very happy that the President’s vision of WMDs sprouting from the desert was being confirmed in the press.

Miller’s sources were dubious and known to possess ulterior motives; her facts and sources later crumbled under investigation. Still, the Times swallowed her act. And, being the opinion makers they are, the paper played a substantial role in fanning the pre-war fervor, a truth they have yet to come clean about.

Only after months of criticism aimed at their favorite daughter did the Times finally fell a few trees to apologize over its reporting on WMDs—but the paper never blamed Miller herself. In the vague, final analysis, their regrets concerning Miller were by far overshadowed by their regrets concerning Jayson Blair.

Hire this Man

During the Blair debacle, you would have thought they'd caught a murderer in the newsroom. Heads hung in shame, editors filled their drinks with tears. Conversely, their treatment of Miller was a polite apology to readers. Editor Bill Keller even told one reporter: "It's a little galling to watch her pursued by some of these armchair media ethicists who have never ventured into a war zone or earned the right to carry Judy's laptop." Whew, Mr. Keller. You cleared that right up! Next!

Ironically, Miller seems like a minor player in the Plame scandal. Yet in this case, too, the Times stands by her, telling Editor & Publisher that "Judy's status remains unchanged. She continues to report." Although her byline is not as prominent as it once was, they're right. She’s written a couple recent pieces on oil sales as well as some coverage of her area of "expertise,” bioterrorism.

Blaming Miller for the Plame scandal is ridiculous. But failing to hold her responsible for her pre-war bungling is worse. With this in mind, we have a suggestion: if the Times is going to keep Miller, the right thing to do is to bring back Blair. He ought to be returned to his former position, compensated in back pay and thrown back into the frothing sea of news.
You might say that Blair’s fabrications were far worse than Miller’s overheated rants. We say why split hairs? It seems that in the cases of Miller and Blair, a pattern of reluctance to fact check or discipline rogue behavior lead the Times into trouble. The Times’ management, in the words of their own Public Editor, Daniel Okrent, proved unwilling to scrutinize the work of Miller and others in the pre-invasion gyre. He writes:

“… my own reporting … has convinced me that a dysfunctional system enabled some reporters operating out of Washington and Baghdad to work outside the lines of customary bureau management. In some instances, reporters who raised substantive questions about certain stories were not heeded. Worse, some with substantial knowledge of the subject at hand seem not to have been given the chance to express reservations.”
Blair was similarly allowed to run his course, despite the gathering storm clouds. The paper may treat some more favorably than others. We won’t. We say: Fair is fair, bring back Blair.

Moreover, we think the Times ought to strongly consider having Blair and Miller share bylines. Double the headlines! Double the scoops! Double the imagination! Miller could provide the sources, Blair could visit the region. What's really happening in North Korea and Iran? Who better than to lead to charge for truth than Miller and Blair? Better yet, embed Blair from the comfort of his own home and give them each a Batphone to allow trouble-free communication 24 hours a day. If Miller goes to jail, they could simply scribe their pieces during his daily visits to her, a steno pad passed back and forth through the slot in the bullet-proof glass.

Another suggestion: In the same way that companies hire former hackers
to secure their networks, the Times could put the pair on the campaign
trail as a way to instantly out bipartisan deception. How does the saying go? It takes a liar to catch a liar? Anyway, these two will smell
rot before anybody else has a chance to dig up damning documents.

Judy and Jayson, together at last. We sniff a Pulitzer. To the point, Times readers aren't likely to detect a difference in the quality of reporting once a reenergized Blair returns. And they're starting to get used to the Times public apologies. What’s a few more?

~ the editors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------