THE STORY
A Reporter's Journey
Judith Miller
Simon & Schuster;
381 pages; $27
In late 2002 and through 2003, Judith Miller, an investigative reporter at The New York Times, wrote a series of articles about the presumed presence of chemical and biological weapons and possible nuclear materiel in Iraq. Critics thought the articles too bellicose and in lockstep with the George W Bush administration's march to war. They all included careful qualifiers, but their overwhelming message was that Saddam Hussein posed a threat.
Ms Miller's defence of her work then was straightforward: she reported what her sources told her. She has now written a book-length elaboration of that defence, The Story: A Reporter's Journey. The defence is no better now than it was then.
The Story, as anodyne a title as one could imagine, briefly sketches Ms Miller's early life before devoting itself to a more detailed description of her career. She came from a troubled home in Nevada and grew into an intrepid young woman who, she writes, liked adventure, sex and martinis.
With very little experience, she joined the Washington bureau of The Times in 1977 as a reporter, a prized assignment, largely because the newspaper was facing a lawsuit accusing it of sex discrimination, she writes. The chapter describing this is titled "The New York Times, the Token." She was very raw and her early work showed it. An editor told her she was sloppy and unprofessional. She learnt professionalism fast enough that in 1983 she was posted to Cairo, one of the first women to head an international bureau for The Times.
She was one of the earliest mainstream journalists to report on growing radicalisation within Islam. She was also one of the earliest to report on the difficulties that could be imagined when the new radicals crossed paths with another emerging problem - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This became a subject she would return to throughout her career.
Ms Miller devotes several chapters, by far the most given to any subject, to her coverage of Iraq. She had missed the first Persian Gulf war, she writes, stranded in Saudi Arabia. She fought hard to be included in coverage of the next one. The string of exclusive articles she produced before the Iraq war had the effect of buttressing the Bush administration's case for invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq invasion and media critics of her reporting accused her of being a secret neoconservative thirsting for war. Whatever her actual politics, though, the agenda that comes through most strongly here is a desire to land on the front page. She rarely mentions an article she wrote without noting that it appeared on the front page or complaining that it did not.
During the war, she writes, she was the sole reporter embedded with the military team charged with finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It failed, meaning so had she. Ms Miller concedes that the Bush administration's case for war was built largely on Iraq's presumably ambitious weapons program. In describing what went wrong with one particular claim, she offers a defence that is repeated throughout the book: "The earlier stories had been wrong because the initial intelligence assessments we reported were themselves mistaken - not lies or exaggerations."
Ms Miller's main defence is that the experts she relied upon - intelligence officials, weapons experts, members of the Bush administration and others - were wrong about Hussein's weapons. She acknowledges being wrong but not making any mistakes. She quotes herself telling another reporter: "If your sources were wrong, you are wrong." This is where she gets stuck.
A deeper critique of her own reporting, and through that example a critique of the entire enterprise of investigative reporting, would examine its inherently prosecutorial nature. Investigators - journalistic or otherwise - are constantly trying to build a case, to make things fit even when they don't obviously do so. In the process, the rough edges of the world can be whittled away, nuance can become muddled in the reporter's head, in the writing, or in the editing.
The final section of The Story deals with Ms Miller's role in the Valerie Plame affair, her refusal to identify a source (for an article she never wrote), her jailing because of that refusal and finally her forced resignation from The Times in 2005. As she describes it, she wasn't simply abandoned but thrown overboard. This seems partly because of politics and institutional embarrassment, but also partly because of her personality. Almost every investigative reporter is in some way difficult to deal with. Ms Miller was no exception. She offended colleagues on the way up, she says, and they delighted in her failure when she fell down.
To Ms Miller's credit, this is not a score-settling book, although Bill Keller, the executive editor who she says forced her out of The Times, gets walked around the block naked a couple of times and competing reporters receive just-for-old-times'-sake elbows to their rib cages.
That doesn't mean she has made peace with the end of her career at The Times. It was a devastating exile for a proud and influential reporter. Cast out of the journalistic temple, she says she felt "stateless" and from the evidence here she remains a bit lost. This sad and flawed book won't help her be found.
© The New York Times News Service 2015
A Reporter's Journey
Judith Miller
Simon & Schuster;
381 pages; $27
In late 2002 and through 2003, Judith Miller, an investigative reporter at The New York Times, wrote a series of articles about the presumed presence of chemical and biological weapons and possible nuclear materiel in Iraq. Critics thought the articles too bellicose and in lockstep with the George W Bush administration's march to war. They all included careful qualifiers, but their overwhelming message was that Saddam Hussein posed a threat.
Ms Miller's defence of her work then was straightforward: she reported what her sources told her. She has now written a book-length elaboration of that defence, The Story: A Reporter's Journey. The defence is no better now than it was then.
The Story, as anodyne a title as one could imagine, briefly sketches Ms Miller's early life before devoting itself to a more detailed description of her career. She came from a troubled home in Nevada and grew into an intrepid young woman who, she writes, liked adventure, sex and martinis.
With very little experience, she joined the Washington bureau of The Times in 1977 as a reporter, a prized assignment, largely because the newspaper was facing a lawsuit accusing it of sex discrimination, she writes. The chapter describing this is titled "The New York Times, the Token." She was very raw and her early work showed it. An editor told her she was sloppy and unprofessional. She learnt professionalism fast enough that in 1983 she was posted to Cairo, one of the first women to head an international bureau for The Times.
She was one of the earliest mainstream journalists to report on growing radicalisation within Islam. She was also one of the earliest to report on the difficulties that could be imagined when the new radicals crossed paths with another emerging problem - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This became a subject she would return to throughout her career.
Ms Miller devotes several chapters, by far the most given to any subject, to her coverage of Iraq. She had missed the first Persian Gulf war, she writes, stranded in Saudi Arabia. She fought hard to be included in coverage of the next one. The string of exclusive articles she produced before the Iraq war had the effect of buttressing the Bush administration's case for invasion.
Opponents of the Iraq invasion and media critics of her reporting accused her of being a secret neoconservative thirsting for war. Whatever her actual politics, though, the agenda that comes through most strongly here is a desire to land on the front page. She rarely mentions an article she wrote without noting that it appeared on the front page or complaining that it did not.
During the war, she writes, she was the sole reporter embedded with the military team charged with finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. It failed, meaning so had she. Ms Miller concedes that the Bush administration's case for war was built largely on Iraq's presumably ambitious weapons program. In describing what went wrong with one particular claim, she offers a defence that is repeated throughout the book: "The earlier stories had been wrong because the initial intelligence assessments we reported were themselves mistaken - not lies or exaggerations."
Ms Miller's main defence is that the experts she relied upon - intelligence officials, weapons experts, members of the Bush administration and others - were wrong about Hussein's weapons. She acknowledges being wrong but not making any mistakes. She quotes herself telling another reporter: "If your sources were wrong, you are wrong." This is where she gets stuck.
A deeper critique of her own reporting, and through that example a critique of the entire enterprise of investigative reporting, would examine its inherently prosecutorial nature. Investigators - journalistic or otherwise - are constantly trying to build a case, to make things fit even when they don't obviously do so. In the process, the rough edges of the world can be whittled away, nuance can become muddled in the reporter's head, in the writing, or in the editing.
The final section of The Story deals with Ms Miller's role in the Valerie Plame affair, her refusal to identify a source (for an article she never wrote), her jailing because of that refusal and finally her forced resignation from The Times in 2005. As she describes it, she wasn't simply abandoned but thrown overboard. This seems partly because of politics and institutional embarrassment, but also partly because of her personality. Almost every investigative reporter is in some way difficult to deal with. Ms Miller was no exception. She offended colleagues on the way up, she says, and they delighted in her failure when she fell down.
To Ms Miller's credit, this is not a score-settling book, although Bill Keller, the executive editor who she says forced her out of The Times, gets walked around the block naked a couple of times and competing reporters receive just-for-old-times'-sake elbows to their rib cages.
That doesn't mean she has made peace with the end of her career at The Times. It was a devastating exile for a proud and influential reporter. Cast out of the journalistic temple, she says she felt "stateless" and from the evidence here she remains a bit lost. This sad and flawed book won't help her be found.
© The New York Times News Service 2015