Blue Crab Boulevard

Ann Althouse's smoke detectors are going off over the op-ed appearing in today's New York Times describing how the Times Two editors decide to publish secrets. Baquet and Keller's explanation rings hollow.

The two editors — Dean Baquet and Bill Keller — rely heavily on the idea that government officials shouldn't have the final say over what gets out and what remains secret. Citizens need to be able to evaluate these officials, who can't be trusted controlling the flow of information. As Baquet and Keller put it: "They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes." Government officials are biased toward suppressing things that make them look bad, and the press needs to bring out the full story, so that citizens can exercise the independent judgment that is crucial to democracy.

But the recently revealed secrets — about the surveillance of telephone call patterns and financial transactions — were not cases of government suppressing failures. These ongoing programs were successful, and revealing the secrets impaired the operation of very significant efforts in the war on terrorism. I realize that there are arguments that people need to know about successes that are subject to controversy: the telephone surveillance program is attacked as an illegal invasion of privacy.

Here, Baquet and Keller have written a lengthy defense of their behavior, behavior that they know has been severely criticized, even called "treason." Despite the length, the piece seems padded. Look at that last paragraph in the blockquote above. We judge, we weigh, we make judgments. Essentially, trust us. Trust us, because you shouldn't just trust the government. Agreed, but why should we trust you? We look at what you just did and feel mistrustful. What in these generic remarks cures that mistrust? You tell us you really did think about it. Those who abhor what you did will not feel inspired to trust you when you say this is where we ended up when we really thought deeply about it.

That is the crux of it. These programs were not secret to protect the government from embarrassment, but the Times Two editors continue to couch their explanation in those terms. As Ann Althouse writes: Why should we trust you?

(By the way, anyone else now getting the feeling that the two editors are beginning to get a bit nervous about the building backlash they have triggered? That's what I am starting to feel here.)

UPDATE: Armed Liberal at Winds Of Change is not impresed, either. Lori Byrd at Wizbang isn't. Mac's Mind is also detecting a whiff of panic. RantingProfs on credibility gaps. Decision '08 says it's all about cake. Hot Air running the numbers. Just One Minute calls it unintentionally funny. Patterico weighs in and slaps the Times Two silly. Flap also detects the smell of fear.

UPDATE: Although Planck's Constant linked this to another post here, it is simply too good not to share! Ladies and gentlemen, Representative John Murtha (D[efeatist] - PA).