STTPML Comment:
John Miller says that journalism is a lot like intelligence work. Aspects yes, but the difference is in the training, experience, mind-set, risks, legal accountability etc. But in Miller’s case, all of his previous positions in law enforcement and intelligence, were the result of being requested by one and always the same person William Bratton, who said to Charlie Rose recently, that had he not been able to talk Miller into leaving CBS and taking this position with the NYPD working again with him, he would not have taken the position. Do they have some kind of same-gender marriage going on? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131229/23050325709/nsas-personal-propagandist-cbs-officially-takes-counterterrorism-job-everyone-knew-he-was-getting.shtml
By his own admission, Miller notes that when drafted for the NYPD position, he had no law enforcement training or experience, no intelligence training or experience, no resume with comparable formal training, experience, background as those who previously held the positions he has held. In answer to this concern, Miller says that resumes may be revealing of some things, but there are also “deeds”. This is Catch-22: “Yes my resume in law enforcement is thin but I can attest and self-anoint/certify myself as the best candidate for the positions I have held based on my “deeds” if I could only tell you what they were without having to kill you…” But he never competed for any of the positions he held in law enforcement or intelligence, he was basically taken along by his patron William Bratton (into public employment which is not the same as bringing your buddies into private employment). And how would Mr., Miller feel if he were on say an airplane and found out that the pilot was hired by his buddy the Chief Pilot, given quicky training internally and a check-ride with a friendly examiner, and his main claim to fame as a pilot was simply his own self-assessment of his own qualifications and performance?
On all of the business programs, if an analyst has been discussing any particular stocks by name, he or she is asked if they have any “disclosures” to make. Of course what this means is simply if someone is pushing a stock as having growth potential, if is fair to ask if that person holds that stock on a call option and if that person is down on a stock, to know if that person has put options on it. It is called conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest that are corrosive to trust and thus to markets and market exchanges.
What if–and why not–the same kinds of “disclosures” of potential conflicts of interest among all journalists? For example, there are several members of the Skull and Bones in journalism who have interviewed fellow Bonesmen or now Boneswomen each not only not allowed to reveal their membership in Skull and Bones or the nature and intentions of it, but are not allowed to ever attack publicly a fellow Bonesperson. That’s OK except when dealing with public trusts and employment, then it is a cover-up not only of the association between the two, but a cover-up of the disproportionate access to power and the holding of power the central objective of the likes of Skull and Bones. Or how about when Charlie Rose interviews fellow Bilderberger, Davos , Bohemian Grove, Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission attendees who agree not to discuss or use anything they have learned in their highly closed and secure meetings or even discuss their membership; should he not disclose that he is more than a “friend” of someone he is interviewing?
Reporters are supposed to avoid if possible, and if not disclose, any and all facts that may suggest conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest; otherwise, they are not reporters doing “original reporting” but doing puff-pieces for each other, infotainment, etc but not journalism or reporting which requires being able to ask the kinds of questions that may well break up friendships or be inhibited to retain them.
Ever since the first TV War–Vietnam, the national security state has planned and schemed not only to embed “journalists” with the military (on whom they become dependent for security, food, shelter, transport, access and scoops, etc) to manipulate and limit the scopes, depths, angles and subjects of press scrutiny, but also to embed elements of the national security state into journalism via the revolving door between them and common interests. Charlie Rose said himself that a major factor in the hiring of Miller was his rolodex and wide ACCESS to various elements of the national security state; and vice-versa,elements of the national security state want access to friendly interviews, air-time for puff-pieces and of course they want access to the rolodexes of the likes of Charlie Rose.
For John Miller, ‘revolving door’ is gateway from CBS News to NYPD

Credibility crisis for “60 Minutes”?
Read whole article and see interview at http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/us/john-miller-cbs-to-nypd/
- John Miller is leaving CBS News to join the New York Police Department
- His career has included stints in both journalism and law enforcement
- Some media critics call such back-and-forth changing a “revolving door”
- They say the revolving door creates conflicts of interest for those in it
(CNN) — John Miller, who has moved back and forth between public service and journalism like few others in either profession, is doing it again.
This time he’s leaving CBS News, where he has been a senior correspondent for two years, and joining the New York Police Department.
Miller announced his latest move on Thursday. He embodies something that is, for some media critics, a source of great concern: the so-called “revolving door” between the people who cover the news and the people who are being covered. For CBS, he’s something else: a fount of great knowledge who will be almost impossible to replace.
David Rhodes, the president of the network news division, said Miller’s decision was “a loss for CBS.”
“He’s been really great for us,” Rhodes said in a telephone interview on Thursday.
CBS allowed Miller out of his contract with the network because, as Rhodes put it, “it would just be inappropriate to stand in the way” of a return to public service. Miller’s exact title at the NYPD is not yet known. But he’ll have a high-profile job in counterterrorism, reuniting with his former boss William Bratton, who was the commissioner of the police department in the mid-1990s and will return to that position in January.
Miller worked for local television stations in New York before going to work for Bratton as a spokesman for the NYPD in 1994. He subsequently worked for ABC News; the Los Angeles Police Department, again under Bratton, who had become police chief there; the FBI; and the office of the Director of National Intelligence. In late 2011 he joined CBS as a senior correspondent. When asked at the time about Miller’s moves back and forth between journalism and law enforcement, Rhodes said, “He understands journalistic sources and methods and he understands our values.”
On Thursday, Rhodes said of the revolving-door situation and Miller, “He’s traveled through it a number of times,” and added “we don’t think it’s a bad thing.”
Rhodes praised Miller for having an unmatched Rolodex of sources and said CBS has “benefited from that greatly.” Among the stories Rhodes cited were the mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut, when Miller was frequently on television to share information he had obtained from law enforcement sources. Rhodes added, “John was the reason why we didn’t go with the erroneous reports of an arrest in the Boston bombings.” (A number of other news organizations, including CNN, prematurely reported an arrest had been made two days after the April explosions.)
“There’s nobody like him, and I think people around the television industry would agree with that,” Rhodes said. “They all would have liked to have him on those, and many more stories that he’s done for us.”
Miller’s close relationships with law enforcement sources, however, are among the reasons why some media critics have objected to his role at CBS and his repeated transitions from public service to journalism.
They say the revolving door creates conflicts of interest for Miller and reporters like him. Miller’s “60 Minutes” report about the National Security Agency met with disapproval by media critics earlier this month in part because of his pending move to the NYPD.
(Michael Calderone of The Huffington Post said on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” “John Miller has left journalism twice before.” Calderone listed Miller’s prior jobs and said that in the “60 Minutes” report, “He disclosed only one of those for law enforcement roles.”)
Rhodes indicated that he didn’t think the report on the NSA was a conflict of interest.
He said on Thursday, “If he (Miller) was covering the NYPD, that would have been inappropriate.”
Miller’s move was announced via a news report on WCBS, the CBS affiliate in New York City. In an interview, Miller alluded to the fact that he’ll be involved in the city’s counterterrorism efforts, saying of New York, “They have certainly the biggest, most complex and forward-leaning counterterrorism operation of any police department in the world, so it will be a great challenge that I hope to rise to.”
Rhodes said CBS News would seek to replace Miller soon, possibly through a combination of new hires.
“If and when he decides to return to journalism, we’d welcome him back,” he said.