Times' Own Ombudsman Rips 'Stonewalling' Paper (faults their failure to print story before election)

NY Post ^ | January 3, 2006 | Andy Soltis

[dead]

The New York Times' "public editor" delivered a blistering attack on the paper for what he called "stonewalling" about its story on the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping.

Byron Calame said on Dec. 19 that he sent 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller about the Times' "woefully inadequate" explanation of its decision to sit on the story for a year.

Keller refused to answer the questions, saying, "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that."

Calame said that wasn't good enough, and sent the same 28 questions to publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined.

On Sunday, Calame took the issue public — in the pages of the Times.

In a column headlined "Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence," he noted that when the controversial, front-page story appeared on Dec. 15, it included a "terse one-paragraph" explanation.

It said the White House had asked that the story be killed, and "after meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting."

Calame said the mention of the delay, "almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation."

< SNIP >

Some critics of the Times said the story may have endangered anti-terror efforts — while others said the paper was too willing to cooperate with the White House by delaying publication.

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

[dead]

To counter charges that their newspaper has become a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, the Times hired an ombudsman who accuses them of not committing treason fast enough to adequately help the Democratic Party.

[FlipWilson]

True, but it is great to see them bat each other around.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

That's what I got out of it. Was the upcoming book even mentioned ?

[bkepley]

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

The damage would have been to Kerry. They probably delayed the story at Kerry's request. Imagine how Rathergate and then Spygate would have looked to most people: an out of control President? Or an out of control press out to get the President?

[Abathar]

"Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election."

This is the most telling statement of all, how they lament the fact that if enough people in Ohio could have been twisted in believing this just before the election we would be saying "President Kerry".

[okie01]

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

They couldn't possibly have thought al-Qaqaa was a more damaging story, could they...???

[OldFriend]

If this story had been revealed before the election, the President would have won by another 10% of the votes.

[Archytekt]

nowhere is it mentioned the political calculation of going public with the NSA story the day after the Iraqi elections. I predicted to freinds that the press would come up with something to step on the election good news, and whoop there it is!

[Chode]

that's bout the way i read it too...

[FranklinsTower]

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

If I recall, OBL released a tape right before the election. I bet they NYT sat on this story because they couldn't release it while the OBL tape was out there as well as Rather-gate. They couldn't find the right time to leak it.

[mallardx]

That's how I read it, as damaging to President Bush. Without knowing this gentleman's character, I would naturally assume the NYTimes would do anything in it's power to destroy President Bush, as they normally operate. A lot of readers seem to indicate otherwise.

[wouldntbprudent]

Or an out-of-touch Rat party with no clear how to secure the nation in the face of an actual threat?

[t2buckeye]

And considering the polls and the public's response to the "scandal" of the NSA eavesdropping, the release of this info would only have HELPED Bush (unless it had been done the weekend before the election so that Bush wouldn't have been able to explain the program as he has done so far)
I just don't see the outrage by most people about this...When they realize that the eavesdrops were on AL Quada terrorists who are speaking to people here, it's a no brainer.