Judith Miller responds to criticism over Assange slight

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller riled up some bloggers and Iraq War critics over the weekend by calling WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange a "bad journalist" who "didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone."

Miller's comment on Fox News brought back to mind her own pre-Iraq War reporting, and how the Bush administration's bogus WMD claims found their way onto the front page of the New York Times.

The media is focusing increasingly less on the Iraq War these days. But the media's own role in the U.S.-led invasion — and events leading up to it — continues to spark heated debate. (On Monday, the New Yorker published a detailed recounting of the media-generated spectacle following the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue nearly eight years ago in downtown Baghdad.)

Liberal blog Crooks & Liars caught the clip that helped bring Miller's pre-war reporting back in the news:

Although many in the political and media establishment promoted the Bush administration's case for war — as Bill Moyers chronicled in "Buying the War" — Miller remains a lighting rod since her influential Times stories were later cited as evidence by leading government officials.

In September 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke about Iraq's nuclear ambitions on "Meet the Press" while attributing the information to a story Miller co-authored that morning in the Times. That piece included a now-famous line attributed to hard-line war supporters: "The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud." Of course, there was no mushroom cloud, since Iraq didn't have WMDs.

So it's not surprising that critics pounced on the comment about verifying information, with political blog Wonkette not mincing words in its headline: "Lying Warmonger Judith Miller Blasts Assange For Not Verifying Info." Some blogs also noted that Miller once told Michael Massing — whose book, "Now They Tell Us," chronicled pre-war reporting — that her job as a reporter wasn't "to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself" but to tell Times readers "what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."

Also, while Miller or others may argue that WikiLeaks doesn't worry who gets "hurt" when publishing classified documents, the organization is also responsible for shedding light on the human costs of war that haven't been fully detailed in the media, including how many Iraqi civilians were killed.

But it's easy for a quick soundbite to get taken out of context. So in light of the criticism, The Cutline reached out to Miller regarding the Assange comments, and she responded in an email as to what she views as the distinction between her and the WikiLeaks chief:

"If anybody bothered to read the Iraq war stories they're now so busy criticizing, they would see that Julian Assange and I were involved in very different kinds of journalism. They are not morally equivalent. While we both sought to publicize official secrets, I and my co-authors at The NYT spent enormous time trying to verify the secret government reports and other WMD-related stories we published. Every exclusive story of mine appeared with a discussion of its context, the difficulty involved in corroborating the highly classified information, and an assessment by at least one independent expert and likely skeptic, often identified by name and organization. Julian Assange, whom I have repeatedly defended, did none of these things. He engaged in data dumping and left these vital journalistic tasks to the papers that used his information. I stand by my criticism of this aspect of his work, as well as by my conclusion that he should not be punished or even faulted for trying to ferret out government secrets. That is what journalists do. Rather, our government is to blame for failing to safeguard truly sensitive information, for grossly over-classifying too much of it, and now, I fear, for deciding to circulate less of it rather than figure out a smarter way to share more of it safely, as the 9/11 Commission recommended almost a decade ago."

Miller's pre-war reporting — and decision to protect her source, former top Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, during the Valerie Plame scandal — also came up in reports last week about a new role she's taking on: contributing writer at conservative magazine Newsmax. In recent months, Miller has written several online posts for Newsmax but will now also contribute to the print magazine. Her first piece — on drugs, terror financing, and a little-known program for U.S. law-enforcement officials to embed in Iraq — appears in the January 2011 issue.

In a separate email, Miller explained why she accepted "an excellent offer" from Newsmax chief Christopher Ruddy to write more for the publication. "Newsmax offered me a lot of space for what we both think is an important story, and support for the reporting that produced it," she said. "Both are rare commodities in American magazine journalism these days."

Miller said she had no reservations about writing for a partisan outlet, pointing out that she's also written op-eds for the Los Angeles Times and New York Daily News, essays and reviews for the Wall Street Journal, opinion pieces for Fox News, and reported articles for City Journal — a publication put out by the Manhattan Institute, of which she's an adjunct fellow.

"I've even written for the Independent, in London," Miller continued. "I value my political independence. So do Fox and Newsmax." (Incidentally, she voted for Barack Obama in 2008).

Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, continues to travel to the Middle East and other global hot spots to report. And yet, for many, the pre-war reporting remains a black mark on her future work. But at this time, Miller's not looking to get into the nitty-gritty about past Times stories and related criticism.

"Whatever I have to say I shall say at the time and place of my choosing," Miller said. "I've noticed that some of my critics are no longer employed in journalism. Happily, I have more work than I can handle."