LA Times Bob And Weave
Hugh Hewitt spoke with Doyle McManus from the LA Times Washington bureau about the lengths the government went to to try to convince newspapers not to publish the money-tracking program. Although McManus comes off as less self-serving than Bill Keller from the NY Times, he still does an awful lot of bobbing and weaving.
HH: In those meetings that you held, Doyle McManus, did the officials, including Mr. Levey, argue that publishing this information would help terrorists?
DM: They did, although it may be worth noting that by the time we were having our principal meeting with Mr. Levey and his aides, which was a meeting that lasted about 90 minutes, at which we asked them to give us the fullest and best case for not printing the story, they had already concluded that the New York Times was going ahead. And the tenor of the meeting was one in which they took as the context, that the New York Times was going to publish the story. And as a matter of fact, in the middle of the meeting we were having, one of the lawyers looked at his blackberry, and kind of rolled his eyes, and got a message to Mr. Levey, and it turned out the New York Times had posted the story at that point. So at that point, the discussion shifted from their making a case against publishing the story to their making a case…their assumption that at this point, everybody was going to publish a story, and they in fact were quite helpful in filling in some of the details of the program, to make sure we had an accurate story, as you saw later in the news conference that Mr. Levey and Secretary Snow had on Friday, I think.
HH: Now Mr. McManus, when they argued to you that publishing the story would help terrorists, did you not believe them?
DM: I did…I neither believed it nor disbelieved it. I would believe I took that seriously. It's impossible for me to evaluate independently to what degree…whether the potential assistance to terrorists…I think they actually didn't argue that it would help terrorists. They argued that it would disadvantage, or make more difficult, counter-terrorist programs. But that's probably a distinction without a difference. What…would that be momentous? Would it be marginal? I don't know.
So without knowing how much damage the revelation would do, they went ahead anyway. After all, there are Pulitzers to be won here! It's really quite revealing of the media mindset later in the interview.
HH: Talking now with Doyle McManus off-air. We'll replay this during the program. Mr. McManus, earlier today, Stuart Levey said to me that, "the effectiveness of this program has been damaged." Do you believe him?
DM: I don't know. I would…look, reporters like to check things out. Reporters take assertions by government officials seriously, but then they go check them out in practice.
HH: He also said it will, "make it difficult to do counter-terrorism." Do you believe that?
DM: Again, I'd have to check it out. The Treasury Department said it was monitoring financial transactions. This is…these stories filled in some detail, some important details, about how they're doing that. I'm not sure how the Treasury Department can, in effect, have it both says, say that, proclaim that they were doing this, but say that this level of detail, which is not, in fact, great, in some senses, damages those efforts, but I'm not dismissing the question, either. I think that there's a whole lot of further serious study.
HH: Given that you're okay with the possibility that this might have helped the terrorists, and might have hurt our counter-terrorism, and damaged the program, are you losing any sleep over the possibility, Doyle McManus, that some terrorists will get away and kill as a result of these stories?
DM: I'm not okay with the possibility, Mr. Hewitt. I think that possibility has to be measured against the possibility that the federal government has expanded its intrusive powers of surveillance and investigation without sufficient oversight and safeguards. If we want to ignore the balancing question here, well, then, we could grant the federal government license in the war against terrorists to do anything at all. I know you're not suggesting that. No one serious has suggested that. But I think it's also unfair to suggest that those of us involved in these stories decided that we were simply okay with letting the terrorists know any secrets it wants.
HH: I didn't mean to say…I meant to say given that you will accept that it may have caused that. That's what I mean, okay with the premise.
DM: Okay.
He really does not care about the damage as much as he believes his role is one of oversight of the elected officials. Now, thinking back on my last trip to the polls, I can't recall voting for the New York or Los Angeles Times to office. Can you?
Blogosphere, Media, War | Gaius June 27, 2006
Other Links to this Post
-
AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude — June 27, 2006 @ 11:17 am
By MrGone, June 27, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Is this the ‘Bandwagon’
By Gaius, June 27, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Could be.
By MrGone, June 27, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
What amazes me is that it’s common knowledge that ALL irregular transactions AND any above $10k are subject to scrutiny by DHS. This has been going on for quite some time. How is this even ‘news’ let alone ‘treason?’ Doesn’t anyone remember that shiek and others they took down for funneling money to ‘terrorist’ organizations? Wasn’t that because they were watching financial transactions? Where’s the SECRET here?
By Gaius, June 27, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
The methods they were using (monitoring Swift) was not common knowledge. Also the $10,000 requirement is US law and some people are not aware of it.
By MrGone, June 27, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
But realistically, who in that business didn’t know and therefore how is this the HUGE national security problem that it’s being painted? Keep in mind that the personal protections in the US are generally much greater, or used to be, than elsewhere and if they’re doing it here, surely they would be doing it there.
By Gaius, June 27, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
The information managed to capture a number of terrorists by the Times’ own admission, it was doing some good, was it not?
By MrGone, June 27, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
Yes, but again, old news. Don’t you think they would have wised up after those guys were caught via financial info? Remember, we trained them. Also, we haven’t caught anyone of significance with these methods.
Just my opinion, but I think the only losers here are us. This is not a partisan position, I didn’t like when Clinton tried it and I don’t like it now.
By Black Jack, June 27, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Horsefeathers:
Never underestimate the terrorists propensity to trip themselves up. Recall the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center? The bombers got caught because they tried to recover their deposit on the rental truck they filled with explosives and parked in the Tower’s basement parking lot.
If stupid is as stupid does, then terrorists can get themselves caught in traps of all sorts. The fact that some forms of financial tracking were discussed at several points in the past does not absolve the Two Timers for disclosing an important and useful program for identifying terrorists and their financial activities.
So, enough of the idiot apology for the treachery of the NY Times and LA Times. You defend the indefensible, you sully yourself.