These grafs from a Guardian story on the Judith Miller situation at the NYT caught my eye:

According to the New York Observer and sources with knowledge of the negotiations, Miller is demanding the right to reply to her critics in an opinion piece and a non-disparagement agreement as condition of her departure. Otherwise she has threatened to return to work. ...

The situation is further complicated by the fact that Miller is a good friend of Mr Sulzberger. "Arthur's social closeness to Judy is making it hard for him to see things clearly," says Doug McGill, editor of the online news website, The McGill report, who worked at the Times for 10 years as a reporter and subeditor. ...

Others argue that Miller, while culpable, reflects a broader problem at the paper. "The Times is delusional about its role as a player and its access to exclusive information from high level sources," said one former staffer. "That is what they wanted and that is what Judy offered them. In the end it comes down to Arthur but no one can say that because he owns the paper."

"There is much greater gravity to this than the Jayson Blair scandal," says McGill. "This was the basis on which we went to war."

Others argue that Miller, while culpable, reflects a broader problem at the paper. "The Times is delusional about its role as a player and its access to exclusive information from high level sources," said one former staffer. "That is what they wanted and that is what Judy offered them. In the end it comes down to Arthur but no one can say that because he owns the paper."

"There is much greater gravity to this than the Jayson Blair scandal," says McGill. "This was the basis on which we went to war."

The full story here (reg. req'd).

And don't forget to read the Observer piece too!