Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sulzberger Responds to 'WSJ' Editorial Slamming the 'NYT'
Editor & Publisher ^ | 6/30/06 | E&P Staff

Posted on 06/30/2006 10:53:12 AM PDT by mathprof

After remaining mum for the past week, even as controversy swirled around newspapers' revealing the banking records surveillance program, the Wall Street Journal editoral page weighed in today. Although the Journal published its own story just hours after The New York Times -- which has taken the most heat -- its editorial defended its own action while blasting the Times.

It even included a personal slam at Times' publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and said the Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror.

Sulzberger responded this afternoon: "I know many of the reporters and editors at The Wall Street Journal and have greater faith in their journalistic excellence than does the Editorial Page of their own paper. I, for one, do not believe they were unaware of the importance of what they were publishing nor oblivious to the impact such a story would have."

Among other things, the editorial criticized the Times for using the Journal as "its ideological wingman" to deflect criticism from the right. And it pointed out that the news and editorial departments are quite separate at the paper and if given the option the editorial side would not have printed the Times' story.

Finally, it explained how it got its own story, then slammed the Times for a wide range of sins, claiming that the "current political clamor" is "warning to the press about the path the Times is walking."

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest. Its executive editor, Bill Keller, said in a statement on Thursday that the paper took seriously the risks of reporting on intelligence.

"We have on many occasions withheld information when lives were at stake," Keller said. "However, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger. Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance."

Journal editors have not responded to repeated requests from E&P for comment this week.

Here are a few excerpts from Friday's Journal editorial. *

We recount all this because more than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the "mainstream media." But anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made knows that different newspapers make up their minds differently.

Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized....

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.

Mr. Keller's open letter explaining his decision to expose the Treasury program all but admits that he did so because he doesn't agree with, or believe, the Bush Administration. "Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress," he writes, and "some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight." Since the Treasury story broke, as it happens, no one but Congressman Ed Markey and a few cranks have even objected to the program, much less claimed illegality.

Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on.

Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billkeller; keller; nyt; nytimes; treason; wot; wsj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2006 10:53:15 AM PDT by mathprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mathprof

The editorial in today's WSJ was really quite good. I think it left a mark. NYT can go screw itself.


2 posted on 06/30/2006 10:57:24 AM PDT by segis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Wow, the WSJ nailed that one on the head!


3 posted on 06/30/2006 10:58:48 AM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: segis

Agreed. The WSJ Editorial was great.


4 posted on 06/30/2006 10:58:54 AM PDT by mathprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

5 posted on 06/30/2006 10:59:29 AM PDT by Stallone (Mainstream Media is dead. I helped kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stallone

New York Times Journalists Jihadists


6 posted on 06/30/2006 11:00:06 AM PDT by Stallone (Mainstream Media is dead. I helped kill it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Hmmm,....... must've hit a nerve.......


7 posted on 06/30/2006 11:01:49 AM PDT by Red Badger (Follow an IROC long enough and sooner or later you will wind up in a trailer park..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: segis

Excellent piece...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008585


8 posted on 06/30/2006 11:01:49 AM PDT by butternut_squash_bisque (The recipe's at my FR HomePage. Try it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?


9 posted on 06/30/2006 11:02:09 AM PDT by Brytani (Someone stole my tagline - reward for its return!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?

Yes, that is true.  The Editorial in today's WSJ explained their actions (quite well) and also slammed the NYT.

10 posted on 06/30/2006 11:03:56 AM PDT by mathprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

"How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?"

Basically, they are saying that Treasury gave them the story after the NYT and LAT refused to spike the story.


11 posted on 06/30/2006 11:04:25 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?

They weren't going to run anything until the NYT made it clear that they were going to publish the story. At that point it became moot to withhold it.

12 posted on 06/30/2006 11:05:02 AM PDT by Bahbah (Democrat Motto: Why not the worst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Well, if that isn't the WSJ Pot calling the NYT Kettle black!


13 posted on 06/30/2006 11:08:11 AM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: segis
That's an understatement. That was a BLISTERING editorial by the WSJ. It reveals even more of the utter mendacity of Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller. And the WSJ has a bigger circulation among movers and shakers in America than the NYT does.

I wish I knew how to Photoshop. I'm dying to do a photo of Bill Keller as the Wicked Witch of the West, melting from a mere few drops of water. The New York Times is melting down as we speak. The Old Gray Lady has become the Harlot of 43d Street.

14 posted on 06/30/2006 11:08:28 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Meet the new dictators of America.....Bill Keller, James Risen, Eric Lichtblau, and Dana Priest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Someone should just "bit*hslap" ol' Pinch and take his newspaper away from him before he ruins it anymore. His management style sucks, as does the NY Times itself!


15 posted on 06/30/2006 11:08:33 AM PDT by geezerwheezer (get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Pinch gets more and more irrelevant...


16 posted on 06/30/2006 11:08:48 AM PDT by Fido969 ("being an arrogant, self-important jerk is a prerequisite for becoming a university administrator.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani
Didn't the WSJ also report this story along with the Times? How are they explaining their decision to run the report while slamming the Times?

The WSJ's news section in a recent survey was found to be the most liberal news paper in the country. Now their editorial secrtion is a whole different ballgame.

17 posted on 06/30/2006 11:10:10 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
Well, if that isn't the WSJ Pot calling the NYT Kettle black!

It isn't.

18 posted on 06/30/2006 11:10:28 AM PDT by Petronski (I just love that woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Pretty lame of the Slimes to try to hide under the Journal's skirts. OTOH, this again makes it painfully obvious that for op/ed pages the "newspaper of record" is no longer the Slimes, but is the Journal.


19 posted on 06/30/2006 11:10:53 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof
Don't miss this ultimate mocking of the NEW YORK TIMES
20 posted on 06/30/2006 11:15:03 AM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

The Times has defended its reporting, saying publication has served America's public interest.

Mr. Sulzburger, a couple of questions.

1. Who determines what is in America's public interest?

2. What public interest was served?

I have seen no public outcry that the Government reveal all the details of how it is tracking and capturing terrorists. Indeed, the only outcry we see is that the government be successful.

It is CLEAR, beyond a reasonable doubt clear, that you think you, the New York Times, are more capable of determining what is in the public's interest than the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, elected members of congress, and the chairmen of the 9/11 commission.

That sir, is the height of arrogance.


21 posted on 06/30/2006 11:16:35 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof; potlatch; ntnychik; PhilDragoo; Grampa Dave; Interesting Times; bitt; abb; Boazo; ...







22 posted on 06/30/2006 11:17:15 AM PDT by devolve (fx 9125_AMERICANS_KILLED_2003_BY_ILLEGALS MEX_ILLEGAL_GOT_911_TERRORISTS_ID NO_NUEVO_TEJAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

"some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight."


Now We're getting some where! Could We please have a list of those individuals.


23 posted on 06/30/2006 11:18:50 AM PDT by wolfcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: segis

Maybe I"ll subscribe to the WSJ sometime in the near future. The enemy of my enemy is my friend,,,right?


24 posted on 06/30/2006 11:19:11 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski


>It isn't.<

Oh, isn't it now?


25 posted on 06/30/2006 11:20:16 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: devolve

You've got some new words! Nice.


26 posted on 06/30/2006 11:21:00 AM PDT by potlatch (Does a clean house indicate that there is a broken computer in it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

I concur. I understated a little. :-)

I think NYT's slide into irrelevancy is the best thing to happen in a while. It is long overdue. I also think the people at helm at NYT should stay on for as long as possible till the NYT is on the same level as the Village Voice or worse. I am of the opinion that we don't need one "Newspaper of Record" - better to have mutiple newspapers of record or sources.


27 posted on 06/30/2006 11:21:17 AM PDT by segis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: austinaero
Better yet, just subscribe to the wsj opinion journal. The news in the WSJ is decidedly on a liberal side.
28 posted on 06/30/2006 11:21:22 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

I'm renewing my WSJ subscription. It took courage to run that editorial.


29 posted on 06/30/2006 11:22:25 AM PDT by aragona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mathprof
The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

They've got us dead to rights on this one...

30 posted on 06/30/2006 11:22:34 AM PDT by GOPJ ('Pinch' has been named al-Qaida's Employee of the Month for the 12th straight month-Phil Brennan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Kudos. Great. Luvvvv it. Best I've seen in a while.


31 posted on 06/30/2006 11:24:25 AM PDT by seasoned traditionalist (ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mware

Thanks for the tip. I don't follow the WSJ much, so I would not have known that.


32 posted on 06/30/2006 11:24:33 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: piytar

So Pinch and Keller are crying wolf , huh? Let Congress name the Times' of both coasts and see how they cry then. Without naming the Times' two, the Congress clouded the issue. It took the WSJ to put it out in the open.


33 posted on 06/30/2006 11:25:53 AM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Nope. Not later either.


34 posted on 06/30/2006 11:26:45 AM PDT by Petronski (I just love that woman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

http://www.opinionjournal.com/


35 posted on 06/30/2006 11:27:44 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: austinaero

the enemy of your enemy is your friend

and that is what the lamestream media and the democrats do not understand

they are allied with al qeada when they are against bush
they have the same talking points


36 posted on 06/30/2006 11:27:49 AM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Liz; abb; Milhous
a personal slam at Times' publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and said the Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror.
37 posted on 06/30/2006 11:27:59 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
A great poll question at opinionjounal.com regarding will the SCOTUS ruling hurt the war on terror.

See post #35 for link.

38 posted on 06/30/2006 11:29:33 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

I would love to see Pinch lose his head.....literally!


39 posted on 06/30/2006 11:29:34 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Behead the liberal media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
That's an understatement. That was a BLISTERING editorial by the WSJ. It reveals even more of the utter mendacity of Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller. And the WSJ has a bigger circulation among movers and shakers in America than the NYT does.

What the old saying?

The New York Times is for people who want to run the world.

The Washington Post is for the people who think they run the world.

And the Wall Street Journal is for the people that do run the world.

40 posted on 06/30/2006 11:29:59 AM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: devolve

41 posted on 06/30/2006 11:30:46 AM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

Or as a caller on RUSH just said, If you throw a rock into a pack of hounds the one that barks the loudest, is the one that got hit.


42 posted on 06/30/2006 11:31:19 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Read the editorial. If you don't understand it, get someone to explain it to you.


43 posted on 06/30/2006 11:31:33 AM PDT by Chunga (Mock The Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

US Traitors Punch and Keller: "We support terrorists, and the murder of thousands of Americans,
and we are absolutely for treason to hurt Americans.
Without that, we are nothing."

44 posted on 06/30/2006 11:32:18 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mathprof; george76

45 posted on 06/30/2006 11:32:34 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

46 posted on 06/30/2006 11:33:26 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

The Wall Street Journal is a joke.

A. Lincoln: A house divided cannot stand.

Neither can a paper at war with itself.

World to WSJ you cannot have it both ways.

Cut out the good cop bad cop crap.

The Journal has more business sense the NYT this is p r and damage control which means they have heard from subscribers and are rightly scared.

Only in a world given to moral relativism can the WSJ signficantly distance itself from the NYT on this issue.


47 posted on 06/30/2006 11:34:07 AM PDT by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

"Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror"

Has that POS Sulzberger ever said he wants the US to win the WOT? Ever?


48 posted on 06/30/2006 11:34:26 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

49 posted on 06/30/2006 11:34:32 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

50 posted on 06/30/2006 11:35:18 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic Lies posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson