So, now that Judy Miller is gone, I privately had to wonder:

Have folks over at the Post been privately gleeful at some of the recent egg-on-their-face moments endured by the New York Times (the Post's main competitor) thanks to Plame-gate?

Survey says: Not so much. I asked a few folks over at the Post and here's what some of them had to say:

• "What's bad for one major newspaper is bad for all of
  them. The credibility of the entire industry is at stake, not just
  that of The New York Times."
  
• "There's not a bit of private glee over Judy Miller's problems, because it cuts too close to the bone. Instead, it's a cautionary tale for us and I think it makes everyone that much more serious about evaluating what we put into the paper and what we let certain writers say. There are Judy Millers in every newsroom, ours included.
  
• "Mostly what I've noticed at 15th and L NW is a lot of chatter about Miller. Plenty of time has been wasted discussing her flame out (not to mention the rumors about her sex life, etc.)

Any other Posties have a different view? Email me at patrick AT mediabistro DOT com

(Related: The Post probably can't be too happy about the Miller affair, because it's not affecting bottom lines the way they might have hoped: The newest Audit Bureau of Circulations report showed the Times circulation going up and the Post's going down...)