Posted on 08/13/2006 7:30:49 AM PDT by george76
The New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, publishes a startling admision from Bill Keller regarding the publication delay of the most explosive story in his short reign as managing editor.
Earlier, when Keller told people that the NSA surveillance story got delayed from December 2004 based on requests from the White House, speculation circulated that the story had actually gotten shelved before the presidential election.
Now Calame confirms that Keller lied about the publication history of the Lichtblau/Risen effort:
Keller has destroyed what's left of his paper's credibility.
He lied to everyone about the timing of this publication, baldly and publicly.
It also damages the credibility of everyone associated with this story. After all, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau certainly knew that the story was ready before the November 2nd election -- and yet they chose to play along with Keller's lies that the decision to spike it was in December 2004 rather than October and November.
The Paper of Record managed to utterly destroy the trust it still had left with readers across the political spectrum with this story.
(Excerpt) Read more at captainsquartersblog.com ...
The far left will still cheerfully slurp up whatever the Times pours into the trough for their consumption. They have managed to yawn off all the evidence gathered by the right of journalistic malfeasance in Lebanon because they simply don't care any longer about integrity and the truth.
I must be thick today...the writing is hard to understand.
What else has Bill Keller and the NYTs lied about?
Does this help?
"Left-wing pundits and bloggers have insisted that Keller spiked the story to keep George Bush in office.
Keller, however, has a different take on his decision. He insists that the news would have likely helped Bush rather than hurt him, and the public support for this program after its delayed revelation last December supports that analysis.
John Kerry and the Democrats had castigated Bush for the lack of visible effort to find and track terrorists, and the program's exposure would have forced Kerry to recant and suddenly argue that Bush had been too enthusiastic about fighting terrorism, a tough pirouette to execute in a grueling presidential campaign. "
Me too. I don't understand it at all....
It's a problem I sometimes have with several bloggers, including this one. They're good at breaking news and exposing the truth, but they're not always a good read.
Yes, it is confusing. It appears that Keller thought he would actually help Kerry by delaying it.
How about... The New York Times made a calculated effort to help Kerry and a calculated effort to time stories so as to not help George Bush.
However, that is nothing new, as they are a left winh rag.
There isn't any left to destroy. I can't think of a way for them to rebuild credibility for years at least. They have been lying about everything except the TV schedules for so long.
People are far better served by the National Enquirer. They print sensation, but require their reporters to get the story straight.
If this is correct, keep up the bad work!
I no longer devote my time to trying to figure out the NYTimes. I simply accept the fact that they are not in the news business, they are wh0res. Cancelled my subscription many months ago!
Uh, let me inform you Shelock, the only people that would trust this paper in the first place are people who do not care about FACTS or TRUTH because they sure as shinola aren't getting it from this POS rag, and haven't been for decades...
One would think he's on the Dan Rather track by now.
I thnk that the point was, if Keller released the NSA secret actions before the election, then Bush would look stronger to the voters by tracking the terrorists with this secret program. Some Congressional leaders knew about the secret program.
At the time before the election, Kerry was saying that Bush was not doing enough to track the terrorists.
This release would then make Kerry's claim of a "do-nothing" Bush much weaker.
I could be wrong, but I think that this is a take on the story.
So, I think, instead of pre election breakage of Nov. '04, the story broke on top of the successful national Iraq elections?
Does anybody remember when it did break? Becasue if the NYTs was holding it to quash good news for Bush then they have become a Democrat Party player.
Does anybody remember when it broke?
His writing is confusing.
The comments helped me some.
Go to the original text at Captain's Quarters and click on the "startling admissions" link. Then it will all make sense.
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.