BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't

Instapundit ^ | 06/26/2006 | Glenn Reynolds

[saveliberty]

June 26, 2006

BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't. How else to explain this passage in his apologia for the Times' publication of classified information about the terrorist financial surveillance program:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them.

A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."

The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)

Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. To quote Keller: "Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements."

Or institutional self-importance. As Hugh Hewitt observes, at the conclusion to a much lengthier critique: "He doesn't have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper."

And the Constitution does not permit titles of nobility.

UPDATE: Austin Bay comments: "The Times, apparently, told the story because it could and because it thinks it can get away with it."

posted at 07:43 AM by Glenn Reynolds

[george76]

"I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but ...

[saveliberty]

That's a fact

[girlangler]

And the media lefties continue to wonder how it is the American public trusts them less than politicians.

It's going to be really hilarious watching them scramble like cockroaches when their little empires come crashing to the ground (well on its way now).

[rightazrain]

"I thought it was understood that we were tracking their financing."

Yes, it was in general. But we didn't want them to know HOW we were doing it!

Surely you see the difference?

[Straight8]

Why the h*** does the nyt think that leaking secret operations by the folks that want to protect us is O.K., but they will NEVER reveal their sources?
Misplaced priorities or do they just hate the president so much that no sacrifice of American lives is too great to achieve their heinous goals?
Damn!

[joylyn]

A good article.

Basically, Keller's letter says that the existence of vague "concerns" was enough to justify outing a successful intelligence operation, and the onus is on the government to persuade him that are compelling reasons for not printing the story. Of course, there will always be "concerns." Moreover, the nature of intelligence work is that making a compelling case for an operation's value requires revealing facts that operatives consider secret. Given Keller's attitude, no one could be sure that he would hold these arugments in confidence. Quite the reverse.

[saveliberty]

Tom Maguire starts it off nicely

Bill Keller Responds

Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, addresses their controversial decision to declare war on the United Statespublish information about a formerly secret program monitoring international funds transfers.

Wizbang provides the condensed version:

Dear Reader:

1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

 

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/06/bill_keller_res.html

 

 

[saveliberty]

Case in point to Keller's lack of brains-- the compelling reason is that if he prints it, he will be sent to jail. I hope he likes orange.

[John Lenin]

I still think the Attorney General should step down.

[saveliberty]

Why?

[John Lenin]

He is not doing his job. Second leak from the same source of classified documents.

[John Lenin]

Make that the Third leak. Even former AG Ed Meese suggests treason charges should be filed. Gonzales seems to be another crony pick by Bush.

[saveliberty]

How is it known who the source is of the leak?

[John Lenin]

I have no faith in the government policing itself.

[edpc]

From the Keller letter:

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they were doing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before.

Sure....the NSA and banking survelliance programs will not cease, but you've helped greatly in making them less effective. As you stated in your letter, Bill....this is elementary stuff.

[saveliberty]

Again ask who is the source of the leak?

[saveliberty]

Someone on Special Report had a great idea (most likely Fred, LOL) -- why not have Peter King haul Bill Keller in for hearings? Make him give a real accounting as to why he thought it was okay to disclose classified information without permission.

[John Lenin]

From what I understand probably a congressperson.

[edpc]

I saw that segement. Fred was right when he said Keller's response was condescending. Case in point: He stated in his response blogs like FR were giving the program more attention. I believe this controversy will grow and further marginalize MSM outlets like the NYT.

[aculeus]

Keller may be a bigger s**t then his predecessor Raines, no small achievement.

The ex-champ is not pleased.