I coulda told him that

NYTimes editor finally figures it out in a memo to colleagues:

[Reporter] "Dick Stevenson has expressed the larger lesson here in an e-mail that strikes me as just right: 'I think there is, or should be, a contract between the paper and its reporters. The contract holds that the paper will go to the
mat to back them up institutionally -- but only to the degree that the reporter has lived up to his or her end of the bargain, specifically to have conducted him or herself in a way consistent with our legal, ethical and journalistic standards, to have been open and candid with the paper about sources, mistakes, conflicts and the like, and generally to deserve having the reputations of all of us put behind him or her. In that way, everybody knows going into a battle exactly what the situation is, what we're fighting for, the degree to which the facts might counsel compromise or not, and the degree to which our collective credibility should be put on the line.'"

In other words, Judy Miller did not live up to the bargain, did not conduct herself in a way consistent with standards, was not candid about sources, mistakes & conflicts, and did not deserve to have the reputation and credibility of the Times (such as it is) backing her up.

What is it with the Times, anyway? This is such elementary shit. I can't believe they really really thought she was credible on her role in this, after she showed time after time after time that she was so NOT credible.