Silence not always the most reliable source
Ms. Miller said in an interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did. "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said. "The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal," NYTIn today's epic, the Times portrays itself as the "bruised," dull-witted protagonist of a mildewed soap. It's worse than that, however.
Much is wrong with Judy Miller's apparently sovereign decisions, the Times' handling of her and them, and its own efforts to report on these matters... See this and this, for example, suggesting negligence higher up. A certain fecklessness:
Last week, Mr. Sulzberger said it was impossible to know whether Ms. Miller could have struck a deal a year earlier, as at least four other journalists had done. NYTIt's especially impossible if you do not ask real questions.
Miller seems to have a penchant for interpreting silence, absence, invisibility -- e.g., her interpretation of the non-appearance of hard evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The New York Times' inability to edit Miss Run Amok is part of a recurrent problem within its editorial agon: a certain inability to distinguish reporting on what is there from interpreting what isn't.
A problem shared by some psychotics.