Dear News Cycle, Thank You for the Lovely Anniversary Presents

November 9th marked the six month anniversary of the launch of the Huffington Post and, apparently, the news cycle remembered because it showered us with a bounty of gifts. (Fishbowl also remembered.)

Among my favorites:

Election Night ’05. Bush proved more toxic than the Ninth Ward. His last minute visit to Virginia sealed the deal for Democrat Kaine. Elsewhere: in California, Arnold went 0-for-4, and, in Dover, Pennsylvania, eight pro-science candidates were elected to the school board, ousting eight backers of Intelligent Design.

Iraq Back as Topic A. The Libby indictment, Harry Reid’s newfound cojones, the dust-up over prewar intel, the revelation of the secret CIA prison, the tortured wrangling over torture between Bush and Cheney, the obscene open-arms treatment of Ahmad Chalabi, and the ever-rising death toll have put Iraq -- and the lies and deceptions the White House used to lead us there -- back in the media spotlight. And, this time, it isn’t going away.

And the day’s unexpected bauble:

The “Retirement” of Judy Miller. This is the gift that keeps on giving, producing both merriment and nausea.

Take Bill Keller’s farewell pat on the back (or was it a kick in the ass?), writing in a very brief announcement memo to his staff, “In her 28 years at The Times, Judy participated in some great prize winning journalism.” Participated? Not “created” or “produced” or “delivered” or “was responsible for”. Participated. As in: “Was along for the ride”. Or “Got her name attached to the very good work of other folks”. Score one for Keller.

In the Times story on Judy’s departure, Kit Seelye tells us that “Lawyers for Miller and the paper [that would be the New York Times] negotiated a severance package whose details they would not disclose”. Not even to the New York Times! What’s more, according to Seeley, “Ms. Miller could not be reached for comment”. That’s funny, because Miller did give a post-retirement phone interview to Gabriel Sherman of the New York Observer, telling him that she was “really very satisfied with the agreement”.

So there you have it, Miller’s humiliation of the Times continues to the bitter end (and, indeed, is sure to continue on well past the bitter end). As Franklin Foer puts it at The Plank: Miller “had the Times by the nuts in these negotiations”. Score two for Miller (with the possibility of adding a number of bonus points depending on the details of her severance package).

I find it deeply ironic that one of the main sticking points of the two-week negotiation that led to Miller’s “retirement” was the battle over Judy’s demand that she be allowed to write an essay for the Times Op-Ed page.

I can’t decide which is more retro, Miller thinking this was a deal breaker or Gail Collins haughtily insisting: “We don’t use the Op-Ed page for back and forth between one part of the paper and another”. They finally compromised on Miller being allowed to publish a letter to the editor refuting the allegations made against her by Keller, Maureen Dowd, and Barney Calame.

As if it mattered where it was published. Memo to Judy and Gail: welcome to the 21st Century. If you write something and it’s interesting, it will be read and picked up by others -- whether it’s on the letters page, the Op-Ed page, a website, or a blog.

The proof of this, of course, is that Judy -- in another poke in the eye to her old employer -- went ahead and scooped the Times by posting her letter to the editor on her website today, where it promptly went flying around the blogosphere and will have been read, analyzed, mocked, and blogged about within an inch of its life long before it appears in print tomorrow morning.

Would it have had any more impact if Judy had won the day and published her side on the Times’ Op-Ed page?

The truth is it doesn’t matter anymore where something appears. What matters is how newsworthy and interesting it is (unless of course, it’s hidden behind Sulzberger’s beloved TimesSelect).

That this musty debate was even a part of the negotiations shows that neither Miller nor the Times understands the power of the blogosphere and the sea change that has occurred in journalism.

It’s the one thing you’d think they would have learned from this whole pathetic affair.