Editor and Publisher notes that the New York Times is going on the offensive to defend it's decision to publish details of a secret program to track money. While both downplaying the significance of the program and trying to shift the focus of the criticism aimed at the Times.
NEW YORK For the Sunday edition, Barney Caleme, public editor for The New York Times, tackles the latest hot-wired controversy, and concludes, "My close look convinced me that Bill Keller, the executive editor, was correct in deciding that Times readers deserved to read about the banking-data surveillance program. And the growing indications that this and other financial monitoring operations were hardly a secret to the terrorist world minimizes the possibility that the article made America less safe."
This comes a day after Keller and Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet co-authored an op-ed, appearing in both papers, defending the publication of articles in the two papers.
Also Sunday, Times' columnist Frank Rich produces a tough-talking defense. Here are a couple of excerpts:
"No sooner were the flag burners hustled offstage than a new traitor was unveiled for the Fourth: the press. Public enemy No. 1 is The New York Times, which was accused of a 'disgraceful' compromise of national security (by President Bush) and treason (by Representative Peter King of New York and the Coulter amen chorus). The Times's offense was to publish a front-page article about a comprehensive American effort to track terrorists with the aid of a Belgian consortium, Swift, which serves as a clearinghouse for some 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.
"It was a solid piece of journalism. But if you want to learn the truly dirty secrets of how our government prosecutes this war, the story of how it vilified The Times is more damning than anything in the article that caused the uproar….
"Representative King, so eager to label others treasonous, has humiliating headlines of his own to counteract: he's the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who has so little clout and bureaucratic aptitude that he couldn't stop the government led by his own party from stripping New York City, in his home state, of 40 percent of its counterterrorism funding. If there's another terrorist attack, he may be the last person in New York who should accuse others, as he did The Times on the House floor on Thursday, of having blood 'on their hands.'
In other words, pay no attention to what we did – look! Over there!
It is disingenuous at best to keep pointing to the attempt to ban flag burning as a Republican effort when Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid were also in favor of it. Rich knows that. He also knows that there is no organized attack on the press as a whole. The criticism is directed at his employer (secondarily at the LA Times). But in an attempt to have it both ways, the program wasn't really secret, but it's use is a dirty little secret.
Bull. I really am beginning to detect a whiff of desperation on the part of the Times Two. I think they know they screwed this one up big time. Trying to "reframe" the issue is a classic sign that they know they are in deep water.
Once again: Keller gone by end of summer, Pinch gone at the next shareholder meeting.
UPDATE: Bruce Kesler has thoughts on this as well.
Why no outrage at the Wall Street Journal for reporting on the same program?
Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker had a good column on this a couple of days ago. In response to calls for Bill Keller to be tried for treason and executed, she writes:
Are we really quite ready for our government to put reporters and editors to death for revealing government activities that pre-9/11 would have been beyond unacceptable?
She also writes:
(T)he media also have a job to protect the public interest against unchecked government power. Balancing that interest against broader security concerns is not a scientific process, but a subjective decision guided by long-held principles that in today’s paranoid environment seem to many outdated or irrelevant.
It’s good to know there are still some true conservatives around, who are leery of government power of all kinds.
By the way, just because a few members of Congress were briefed, it doesn’t mean it was legal. Congress makes laws, not the Executive. It’s funny righties condemn “judicial activism”, yet excuse executive activism.
It appears that those who are attacking The Times are doing it over nothing, as the information had already been discussed publicly. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
As reported by the Globe’s Bryan Bender, information about the financial tracking program has been in the public domain since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It is referenced in government documents, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners — and in an executive order signed in September 2001 by Bush. U.S. authorities openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing, including access to transactions that travel through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Communication, or SWIFT, the program detailed by the Times.
“There have been public references to SWIFT before,” Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003, told the Globe. “The White House is overreaching,” added Cressey, when the administration suggests the Times committed “a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.”
Tell me what The Times did wrong, since the administration had refered to the program in public before.
This is all just a diversion, in an attempt to keep the heat off of the Bush administration and their poorly-conceived and poorly executed war.
All your false spin makes no difference. The program was not illegal, nor do the Times Two try to say it was. The fact that some people may have known something does nopt mean that the details were common knowledge.
Show what laws were violated or stop spinning.
For years, conservatives have said that programs not authorized by the Constitution are illegal. Show me where this program is authorized by the Constitution. Show me which law passed by Congress authorized this program. The Executive branch is not authorized to start programs without authorizationl.
You didn’t answer my questions regarding The Times and the Wall Street Journal–how come you didn’t attack the WSJ for also disclosing the program, and why is The Times wrong for disclosing a program that had already been disclosed?
False premise. Bank records are not private – so says the Supreme Court – go argue with them.
Perhaps it’s legal. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing for the citizens of this country to know that it’s happening. It also doesn’t mean that disclosing the program is against the law.
And, for the third time, why haven’t you attacked the WSJ for their reporting of the program? Your selective attacks suggest that you have no principles other than crushing those with whom you disagree.
I commented on the WSJ. I do not have to debate you on whatever points you choose to bring up, nor do I have to respond to your allegations of what I am supposed to believe. Go read the comment policy.
You are the one trying to provide cover, not me. Unlike your arguments, my discussion of the Times is not agenda driven – it is belief driven. There is a huge difference.
If you’re feeling all oppressed, feel free not to read this blog. Wouldn’t want you crushed or anything.
I commented on the WSJ.
Oh yeah? Where? I can’t find it.
Yes, it’s true, you don’t have to debate me about anything, but it makes you look like a fool when someone brings up pertinent points and you call it spinning.
Where did I tell you what you’re supposed to believe?
Please tell me the difference between belief driven and agenda driven. Perhaps someday you’ll graduate to truth driven.
I don’t feel oppressed. It’s just silly that you refuse to engage in meaningful debate.
Debate with you would not be meaningful, you’re simply unable to see past your agenda as your comments indicate.
Keller was on TV attempting to minimize his crime today. He said everybody already knew about the tracking program anyway, so no secrets were revealed. According to him and others, it was already public knowledge. No harm, no foul.
However, Keller neglected to explain how something that was supposedly already so well know qualified as front page “news.” Nor did he explain why the NY Times article said the program was a “closely held secret.” Either Keller doesn’t read the NYT, or he can’t keep his facts straight. He can’t have it both ways.
Nor did Keller address the program’s successful identification of the Bali bombers. If the program was already well known, how was it they failed to get the message? Keller didn’t say, but he certainly made sure no future terrorists were out of the loop.
Keller’s sad tap dance, and silly double talk, isn’t fooling anyone except those who want to be fooled, see above, and shows he’s unfit for his job, but then so is the NY Times publisher, and a good number of the reporters as well.