On Nov. 12th, Maureen Dowd was interviewed by Larry King on CNN. Asked about Judith Miller of the Times, and her role in the lead-up to war in Iraq, Dowd said the problem was that “Miller was too credible.” This struck me as an odd claim, as if the writings of one reporter should so overwhelm the nation in their authenticity and authority as to make the push for war inevitable. Dowd went on to explain (and I paraphrase), UMiller should know that for an investigative reporter, getting the press quotes from the White House is the beginning of the job, not the end.” Which raises a question: shouldn’t a famous columnist for the New York Times know the difference between “credible” and “credulous”?
