The Left's Silence on Judith Miller

The left is always yammering away about "free speech"--except when they don't like what's being said. So it's interesting to look at the reaction--that is, the non-reaction -- of the left to the Supreme Court decision yesterday that could mean jail terms for Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Miller has become such a loathed figure on the left, for daring to run stories countering PC conventions, that ordinarily voluble First Amendment types aren't feeling especially righteous today.

I previously discussed the unprincipled attacks on Miller here and here. If you're going to judge a person by his or her enemies--in this case the dimwitted Russ Baker and the Payola Pundit Ian Williams--Miller has got to be pretty damn good.

AlterNet, typically, has only one article on the subject lately, a snooty piece on Miller extracted from Editor & Publisher. "Is the New York Times reporter seeking martyr status in the Plame case to rescue a reputation tarnished by outrageous WMD reporting?" asks AlterNet.

A typical Counterpunch article in February ignored Miller and Cooper completely, focusing its attack instead on Robert Novak--who actually revealed Valerie Plame's name in a column. (This is one of those rare instances in which I agree with Counterpunch, by the way. Why has Novak been left alone?) Miller and Cooper, because of the former's non-PC behavior, proves troubling to the Stalinist jerks who run that dreary publication. So their plight doesn't even warrant a mention.

Miller is one of the few Times reporters who have stood apart from the newspaper's creepy politics. Sure, the newspaper has supported her. But that is no reason for critics of the newspaper not to do the same. It's time for the conservative community to take a stance on this, and put an end to an increasingly bizarre assault on two fine journalists.