New York Oberserver - April 28, 2003
Off the Record by Sridhar Pappu
On April 21, New York Times reporter Judith Miller broke what appeared to be one the most important stories since the war in Iraq began. In a piece that ran on the paper's front page, Ms. Miller reported that a scientist in Saddam Hussein's chemical-weapons program, in speaking to U.S military investigators, had claimed that Iraq had destroyed illicit weapons in the days leading up the war.
The revelation was huge news because if the scientist's claims were true, they supported President Bush's stated rationale for the war: that Iraq was a menace to world peace because it was secretly harboring chemical and biological weapons.
But the deal Ms. Miller made to get her piece was wildly peculiar, and it provoked concern not only among the usual journalism ethics hand-wringers, but also among her colleagues at The Times.
In her story, Ms. Miller disclosed that in the course of reporting her piece, she agreed to several conditions set forth by the group interviewing the scientist-the Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha (M.E.T. Alpha), the U.S. military unit in charge of finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction.
"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of MET Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home," Ms. Miller wrote. "Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials."
That Ms. Miller would report on the closed-door revelations of an individual under government questioning wasn't earth-shattering or unprecedented-such revelations are routinely reported in newspapers, usually as leaks from officials involved in an investigation
But observers at The Times and elsewhere were dismayed by the last part of Ms. Miller's deal-that the newspaper would submit its copy to military brass for approval. The military officials had even dictated a change to the copy, that The Times agreed to make.
"Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted," Ms. Miller wrote. "They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked."
According to Times sources, the piece had caused an uproar among some reporters on 43rd Street. Several sources said there had been intense discussions in the newsroom about the deal Ms. Miller made and the paper's decision to run the piece under such conditions. One source inside The Times called it a "wacky-assed piece," adding that there were "real questions about it and why it was on page 1."
Ultimately, Ms. Miller's piece raised more questions than it answered. Not surprisingly, The Washington Post was dismissive of her findings on April 22. "Without further details of the find, experts said, its significance cannot be assessed," The Post's Barton Gellman wrote.
Ms. Miller, of course, was no inexperienced staffer. She is a Times veteran, one of the paper's true stars, whose work on the subject of chemical weapons-including her book with William Broad and Stephen Engelberg, Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War-has been exhaustive and much admired.
Given her track record and the extraordinary circumstances of the story, Ms. Miller deserved the benefit of the doubt, said Alex S. Jones, co-author of The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind the New York Times. "She has a vested interest in not only The New York Times getting the story but also a vested interest in being right," he said. "This is a person who has more experience reporting on chemical weapons than anyone else."
But others were not as convinced. While giving props to Ms. Miller's scoop, Slate press critic Jack Shafer wrote on April 21 that it is "worth asking if she and the Times secured it at a price too dear. If the paper of record has changed the rules of sourcing to the advantage of the U.S. military and the Bush administration, it ought to inform its readers of those changes, preferably in a meaty 'Editor's Note' on Page Two."
New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen called Ms. Miller's piece the kind where "press criticism is important."
"It's the kind of story used to label colonial newspapers: it's important if true," Mr. Rosen said. "That's how I feel about this story. It's important if true."
His colleague at N.Y.U., Rob Boynton, said he was "surprised" to see the story not sourced closer to the actual subject.
"This is the rationale behind the war," Mr. Boynton said. "There's something dismaying about saying, 'I saw this person who was said to be an Iraqi scientist.' Hell, that person might be the janitor for all we know."
But Mr. Jones said he felt both Ms. Miller and The Times aptly handled the story. He pointed to its location below the fold as a signal that this wasn't the smoking gun but "an important development" in an ongoing story.
"I think she was very, very precise in the explanation of the limitations that she was reporting under, which was very helpful as a reader," Mr. Jones said.
Ms. Miller did not return an e-mail request seeking an interview. Toby Usnik, a spokesperson for The Times, said that Ms. Miller, Times executive editor Howell Raines, managing editor Gerald Boyd and foreign editor Roger Cohen were all unavailable for comment.
But Mr. Usnik defended Ms. Miller's piece. Calling Ms. Miller's story "a splendid piece of reporting," Mr. Usnik acknowledged it was not the "whole story-but admirably candid about its limitations, and a fine basis for further reporting, which of course we will do."
As for the deal that was cut, Mr. Usnik said The Times placed the military's ground rules for the piece "in the same category as our use-and other papers' use-of embedded assignments in general."
Mr. Usnik also said that the paper had not regularly submitted copy for review during the war, though he added: "We did periodically remind readers that the ground rules for 'embedded' correspondents ruled out disclosure of specific locations and planned military actions."
"Our customary practice is to write about the review process if a story was altered by it," Mr. Usnik continued. "The Miller story was."