All Holds Barred Reporting

The NYTimes has been pretty mum on the Miller/Plame story since Miller got out of jail ... and people are starting to notice. Says Editor & Publisher:

In the 11 days since Judith Miller left jail after agreeing to testify before a federal grand jury about her sources, many of the facts in the case have yet to come out. But one thing is clear: Her newspaper, The New York Times, has had very little to say about her role in the Plame/CIA leak case, and has been regularly scooped by other papers on the latest twists in her involvement.

The newspaper promised a full accounting by now, but then put it off after Miller was told she had to chat with the federal prosecutor again, on Tuesday. ...

The paper had to run a correction today on one bit of information it did confirm (after it was widely published elsewhere): The previously unknown conversation between Miller and I. Lewis Libby took place on June 23, 2003, not June 25 of that year.

The all-holds-barred reporting by the Times about a national story partly based in its own newsroom has drawn comments from several daily newspaper editors, who tell E&P that the Gray Lady needs to open up more about one of its own. But more than half of the top editors polled by E&P on this subject declined to comment, refusing to leap to the paper's defense, or condemn it.

Some of the editors complained that the NYT's behavior was beneath its stature. Are we at the point yet when we can say, "What stature?" The paper refuses to report credibly on stories that might harm its friends at Air America stink and the DNC and is transparently unfair in its coverage of the Bush administration ... except when that news is coming out of its own newsroom.

Then it's transparently quiet ... you'd think they had something they wanted very much to hide.

h/t Media Bistro