Friday, May 15, 2015


She's referring to this:

At The American Spectator, Emily Zanotti writes:
You can watch the full interview above. In it, both James and Judith talk about the state of the media today, and how, in the last several years, the attitude -- and, more importantly, the professionalism -- of the once noble Fourth Estate has declined, leaving a profession that is less interested in sniffing out the real story than it is in fortifying it's own pre-determined ideology, and feeding the vast connected network of partisan media on the left red meat to perpetuate their outrage.
No, I didn't make that quote up.

At National Review, John Fund adds:
It might seem an odd pairing...
Well, no, not really.
It might seem an odd pairing, but guerilla documentarian James O’Keefe and former New York Times foreign correspondent Judith Miller hit it off at the recent Right Online conference, a freedom-oriented bloggers conference in Washington. So much so that O’Keefe sat down with Miller for a 50-minute interview.
Right Online? That would be these guys:

Top-billed speaker at this conference? Sharyl Attkisson, naturally.

Fund goes on to write:
[Miller] also gives her candid views on many of her journalistic colleagues. “Skepticism should unite all journalists, and also the desire to hear the other person out and never have a closed mind,” she says. “I find it interesting that I find much more openness at Right Online than I find in many more classic liberal circles....”
I don't think "openness" means what you think it means, Judith.

Oh, and Fund notes a racial cheap shot thrown by Miller (emphasis added below):
The double standard of the mainstream media has been exacerbated of late by two events, Miller believes. First, President Obama has on many issues been given “a pass” because he’s the first black president of the United States. Secondly, the New York Times has moved further left since she left the paper in 2005. “The opinions of the editorial board have drifted and dribbled in the news side” more and more often she believes.
Fund concludes:
The rest of the interview makes for a fascinating session in which a print journalist and a videographer agree that regardless of the way they approach stories, they are both, in Miller’s words, “poking holes in comfortable narratives.” And that should be what good journalism is often about.
Yes, really -- validating a flawed and deceitful case for war that came directly from the White House was part of the process of “poking holes in comfortable narratives,” according to Miller.

I confess I've made it through only seven minutes of the clip above. I turned it off the second time Miller said that certain people are unfit to criticize her because "they don't know me." Did you realize that if you want to criticize the published work of a reporter for the most important newspaper in America, you have to be personally acquainted with that reporter? Me either.


Victor said...

She served her purpose:
The Dick "Of Death" Cheney could go on MTP with Timmeh, and say, 'Even the liberal NY Times agrees with the intelligence!' - that he conveniently fed her.

Miller's now a caricature.
Anyone who meets with that lying sociopath, O'Keefe, has lost his/her moral center and any trace of credibility.

nancydrew said...

Judith Miller has already confirmed that she's unredeemable. Thrice now. And if you didn't see her smirking self-congratulory attempt to return to respectable company, the stint on Jon Stewart, go to thy YouTube.

Roger said...

Leave Judy alllllooooooooooooonnnneeeeee!

petrilli said...

Cut free from respectable circles and the institutional support she took for granted, Miller is drifting to her natural level. Happened to Dennis Miller too. "They turn in clusters."

Philo Vaihinger said...

If painlessness is the aim, perhaps the guillotine was the most "humane" method of execution.

Or the KGB method in the basement of the Lubyanka.

A bullet in the back of the head.

petrilli said...

Wrong thread, Philo. Or maybe not.