"Why yes ma'am - he is a NY Times reporter who committed treason against the ole US of A - and yes ma'am, you can pull the trap door lever if ya'll want to."
Posted on 01/01/2006 3:22:40 PM PST by smoothsailing
The full grovel
By Thomas Lifson
Jan. 1,2006
Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, addresses his newspaper's role in publishing leaked classified information about the NSA's surveillance program. As the Department of Justice has launched an investigation of the probably criminal leaking and possibly criminal publication of the data, interest in the matter could not be higher.
Shockingly enough, his superiors stonewall him when it comes to explaining why they waited a year to publish the revelations. Moreover, their story about the actual time interval of the delay has certain inconsistencies.
Usually, when those under investigation for possible criminal activity clam up and issue conflicting statements, it is time for serious journalists committed to protecting the public interest to dig all the deeper, in the common journalistic conviction that stonewalls and inconsistencies are sure signs of something rotten.
Unless, of course, the issuers of the inconsistencies and erecters of the stonewall happen to sign the paycheck of the intrepid public editor….
Does Calame resign in the face of his management's stonewall? Does he question the public impact of the leak of secrets? Does he consider the point of view of those who argued against printing the leaked secrets?
Not a bit of it.
Instead, Calame basically rationalizes his bosses' refusal to provide him with information (they just be protecting their sources), and adopts the framework of the anti-war moonbats:
"why wasn't these secrets published in time to swing the presidential election of 2004?"
In other words, after hitting a stonewall, he continues forward motion in a full grovel.
It is time to add a new word to Byron Calame's title. No longer does "public editor" suffice. It should be "public relations editor."
Department of Justice would be well advised to get him into witness protection immediately.
Actually, his bosses would have been better served if he had said nothing. The very fact that he has said that they stonewalled his requests for an explanation speaks for itself.
I had the same take on it as Lifson. It means that they are fearful of saying anything because the Justice Department might use it against them in its investigation.
So, Byron Calame may be playing CYA, but his column still is revealing to those who read between the lines.
Take it easy. The Times is the Times but Calame has been all right.
Did you actually read what Calame wrote in the Slimes? I can assure you, Calame is NOT all right.He gives the paper a pass on the story, actually defending it as a public service.So do yourself a favor, drop the "take it easy" nonsense.
"Why yes ma'am - he is a NY Times reporter who committed treason against the ole US of A - and yes ma'am, you can pull the trap door lever if ya'll want to."
Unlike ammo,the rope is re-usable!
Hardly, he is actively shilling for Sulzberger and Keller:
"At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches."
All that is so much blather, which doesn't say anything not already said by a thousand leftist flaks.
The one essential point made by the article is that he sent Keller and Sulzberger a list of questions, and they refused to send him any reply. It's not his job to badmouth his bosses, unless he wants to get fired. But he did print the one essential fact. They stonewalled him.
I also agree that it's not his job to badmouth his bosses, nor is it his job to praise them for publishing a story that threatens national security.
We see the "blather", as you call it, differently.No matter, we're both entitled.
Cheers!
My dear fellow Freepers, with important congressional elections coming this year, perhaps the time has come to make Media Selective Indignation and Political Advocacy the BIG ISSUE.
And, I'm wondering if we at FR can (or should) be the big instigators.
I'll be repeating this in a vanity essay in a month or so.
.
This butt-kisser Calame is shilling for Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
