While Bill Keller continues to proclaim that Times readers (and staff) should just sit tight and be patient for the Pulitzer that will surely come their way when they finally get around to telling all about the Miller-Libby CIA leak investigation story, the rest of the news world is actually covering the story:
Bill Keller, The Times’s executive editor, said: “It’s a great relief to have Judy out of legal jeopardy. And it should clear the way for The Times to do what we’ve been yearning to do: tell the story.” Mr. Keller had said in an earlier message to the paper’s staff that once Ms. Miller’s “obligations to the grand jury are fulfilled, we intend to write the most thorough story we can of her entanglement with the White House leak investigation.”
Take the Times latest story yesterday which essentially was a rehash of details that anyone following this story already knows (except for the report that Miller’s contempt citation had been lifted). What’s worse about this article though is that it omits important details about this story that have already been reported at Editor & Publisher and Newsweek (see my post). I just don’t get the Times’ diffidence. Did they refuse to include these developments because they couldn’t verify them themselves? If so, then why not at least allude to the other stories while noting that they aren’t sourced or proven. Whatever, but at least say something real instead of rehasing what we already know.
This approach makes one begin to suspect what we’ll read when the paper finally does get around to telling us what it knows. Will it tell us all? Will it fudge facts that may make Miller, Keller or the Times look bad? Given Times coverage up till now, I don’t have a lot of faith that their finished product is going to be much more satisfying than what we’ve gotten till now.