I should have stopped dealing with the press when I left the theater, but alas Sunday evening, I read the New York Times . Occupying huge space in the news section beginning on the front page was that newspapers sordid defense of its coverage of the CIA leak investigation involving Times reporter Judith Miller. Apart from the Times' feeble defense of its own actions, Judith Miller was given extensive space to attempt to defend her conduct, although the result was a conclusion that this woman is not accurately telling her story.

This entire sorry episode began in July 2003 when syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that two senior officials disclosed the name of the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. His wife, Valerie Plame, was described as a “CIA operative.” That disclosure might have been a criminal offense.

A hard driving special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed. Fitzgerald's inquiry has broadened to include whether there was a conspiracy within the Bush administration to discredit Wilson for his statements critical of the White House's use of intelligence in the days prior to the invasion of Iraq.

I recognize that there are plenty of people who never read the New York Times and they're probably happy to see the paper suffering from its treatment of this affair. Certainly some of the Times' leading competitors are gloating. However, the issue is not whether one likes the New York Times or not.

A major point that is overlooked is that this episode demonstrates an enormous weakness in our present press coverage of the Presidential administration regardless of who is in the White House. There are many conscientious reporters who will dig for a story. However, all too many will depend on government officials for handouts. Their method of reporting is to become friendly with those in the administration who are making government policy, i.e., making the news. The reporters depend upon these government officials for the information that they write in their articles. As a former colleague of Judith Miller wrote about one of her articles, “she turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies.”

From the standpoint of the government officials, they are often delighted to have reporters to write what they want written, particularly without attribution. The reporters are used and manipulated as the government officials manage the news. A remarkable exercise of reporters being co-opted was the approach of the Pentagon to have “embedded journalists” during the war in Iraq. All of the members of the press who had been selected were delighted by their privileged position. Neither they nor their editors questioned whether their independence and integrity were being compromised.

Judith Miller's bosses at the Times believed and accepted everything she said even if it lacked credibility. Where was the management and supervision from the Edward R. Morrow era?

There was an article a number of years ago about reporters going through Henry Kissinger's garbage outside of his Georgetown house to obtain information for news stories about Watergate. Most people thought it was outrageous. Would it have been better if Kissinger had invited the journalist in for coffee, given his own slanted view of Watergate and then read with glee the next day as the reporter wrote Kissinger's words as if they were fact without attribution. Between Judith Miller and the reporter going through Henry Kissinger's garbage, I would prefer the garbage man.

On the subject of movies, war in Africa is treated in the Constant Gardner . It's a weak story, lacking credible characters, that glosses over the situation in Kenya. Far more accurate and meaningful, although at times tough to take, is Nicholas Cage's performance in the Lord of War . At last, there seems to be a realistic treatment of a complex international subject that is entertaining as well.