Salon.com analyzes the report that emerges from The New York Times‘ internal investigative report of Judy Miller (whose account the paper also published). According to the Times, “[A]n examination of Ms. Miller’s decision not to testify, and then to do so, offers fresh information about her role in the [Fitzgerald] investigation and how The New York Times turned her case into a cause.” The story also states:
Neither The Times nor its cause has emerged unbruised. Three courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to back Ms. Miller. Critics said The Times was protecting not a whistle-blower but an administration campaign intended to squelch dissent. The Times’s coverage of itself was under assault: While the editorial page had crusaded on Ms. Miller’s behalf, the news department had more than once been scooped on the paper’s own story, even including the news of Ms. Miller’s release from jail.
Asked what she regretted about The Times’s handling of the matter, Jill Abramson, a managing editor, said: “The entire thing.”