Media on trial in Libby case

Washington Post/Houston Chronicle:

Defense Exhibit 1972, a tape-recorded interview from the Imus in the Morning radio show, is another of those revealing moments in the perjury trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"So ... what happened?" radio host Don Imus asks NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell about her confusing reporting on an undercover CIA officer. "Were you drunk?"

"I obviously screwed up," Mitchell responds in an exchange that Libby's defense hopes to play for the jury. "I guess I was drunk," she jokes.

Just when you thought it was impossible for more harm to come to the national news media's reputation, the defense in the trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is about to present its case.

Starting today, when Libby's attorneys try to show that he did not intentionally lie about his role in leaking the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, they will rely heavily on a string of journalists as witnesses.

In several ways, those witnesses will be asked to raise doubts about the testimony and accuracy of other reporters, and some might end up tarnishing themselves or their sources.

...

Three reporters at The Washington Post, a senior New York Times editor, a Times Washington bureau reporter and a Newsweek magazine reporter are expected to testify.

Defense attorneys are keen to ask New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson about the accuracy of former Times reporter Judith Miller, a prosecution witness who said Libby told her about Plame in June 2003.

They want Abramson to rebut Miller's testimony that she urged Abramson, then the Times' Washington bureau chief, to have the paper pursue the story about Wilson's wife working at the CIA. Abramson says Miller never made such a suggestion.

But the questioning could get into the gritty business of whether Abramson considered Miller to be accurate and impartial in her work.

Defense attorneys also are eager to question Mitchell about the memory and credibility of Russert, her NBC colleague.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton will rule today on whether Mitchell's testimony is relevant.

Mitchell's testimony seems clearly relevant to the case and it also helps with the recollection defense that Libby has put forward. Abramson has contradicted Miller's testimony in articles previous published, so she would be stuck with challenging her own papers reporting or one of its former reporters who testified for the prosecution. It would be a mistake to deny this testimony to the defense case.