Posted on 07/01/2006 2:26:58 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Top editors from the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, responding to criticism over publishing stories about a government program that tracked millions of financial records in search of terrorists, on Saturday defended their decisions to publish government secrets.
"We weight the merits of publishing against the risks of publishing," wrote Dean Baquet, Los Angeles Times editor, and Bill Keller, New York Times executive editor, in an op-ed piece that ran in both newspapers.
"There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public's interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information," the piece continued. "We make our best judgment."
The editors wrote that judging whether to report sensitive information is a deliberate and intensive process, but they have an obligation to inform. "Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price."
The editors cited examples in which both of their newspapers had made decisions to not publish certain stories or details out of security concerns, noting that The New York Times story about the financial records tracking focused on its sweep and legal basis rather than how the program operated.
President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and some congressional leaders were most critical of The New York Times, which last year also reported on an electronic eavesdropping program.
In New York on Friday, Cheney called the leaks and their publication "very damaging to our national security. Putting this information on the front page makes it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks."
A House resolution that declared the reports had "placed the lives of Americans in danger" was approved 227-183 this past week, supported by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats.
The op-ed piece appeared one day after The Wall Street Journal, which also reported about the financial tracking program, distanced itself from the Times story.
"Anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made know that different newspapers make up their minds differently," the Journal editorial said, noting that the Treasury Department approached the paper offering declassified information about the program.
It would be nice if they published...
1) All the news about the terrorists that they have.
2) All the good news about what the war on terror has done for people in that region.
But so far they've limited themselves to all the news that's bad for Bush, bad for our country, or helpful to the enemy - and that's a very small percentage of the real news from the war.
A class action lawsuit by all Americans endangered?
The names and employers of all sources discussed in the story. Preferably with direct, checkable quotes from same.
But of course, they won't.
Secrecy for me, and not for thee.
that would be awesome!
"a state of constant apprehension..."
Too bad we can't investiage the private lives of these editors and journalists, and publish them in "the public interest".
If that had been the prevailing standard during World War II think of the headlines:
ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION DEFENDS DECISION TO DEVELOP ATOM BOMB: Times Defends Decision to Publish Einstein Letter
JAPANESE OVER THEIR HEADS ON GUADALCANAL: Times Defends Decision to Publish "Magic" Intercepts, Denies Publishing Will Hamper War Effort
US IS READING GERMAN MILITARY TRAFFIC: Times Publishes Exclusive Schematics for "Ultra" Encoding Device, Defends Decision Despite Pleas from War Department
The list could go on indefinitely. Suffice it to say we would probably never have defeated either Japan or Germany had the press been able to make their own decisions about what to publish, about what is and is not secret.
I seriously question whether we can win ANY war in the future if his attitude prevails.
You haven't figured it out yet? I don't tnink they want us to win.
Institutional investors should pull out of these stocks.
Amen to all that!
The summer homes of Rumsfeld and Cheney were just published in the New York Times. Can't someone find out where Keller and Sulzberger live?
THat's the problem. Most of us really don't care.
NYT's publishes the Navaho Code talker's dictionary
NEW YORK TIMES.COM CENSORSHIP
I twice posted a non obscene comment at newyorktimes.com, twice it was removed.
My comment was not indecent, nor was it obscene. It was however critical of the New York Times’ decision to publish what they themselves refer to as “secret surveillance of international banking records”, as indicated on their site here;
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/
The heading is; Keller Letter on Banking Data Elicits Intense Reader Reaction
The author is New York Times "readers representative" Byron Calame.
Twice, my comment was removed.
My original post:
________________________________________________________________________
“You disgust me, New York Times.
You undoubtedly wouldn't consider making public the minutes of your board meetings or pre-run strategy sessions, yet you will compromise legal, National defense strategies during a WAR.
I think it would serve a compelling public interest to know what goes on at the Los Angeles Times.
Cancel my subscription, John Q. Citizen”
William Hearst
It was posted, then removed. I notice that pro NYT posts don’t mysteriously go POOPH, into the ether. Look at the ratio of pro NYT vs. those who disagree with their decision to publish “secret surveillance of international banking records”.
Posts that meet their stringent censorship criteria, (ie. .pro NYT) versus those posts that oppose the NYT decision to publish the surveillance of the banking records of those who are linked to terrorism.
The posts that are critical of the NYT go away, all but the most benign.
I then posted this several minutes later:
________________________________________________________________________
“You disgust me, New York Times.
You undoubtedly wouldn't consider making public the minutes of your board meetings or pre-run strategy sessions, yet you will compromise legal, National defense strategies during a WAR.
I think it would serve a compelling public interest to know what goes on at the Los Angeles Times.
Cancel my subscription, John Q. Citizen”
William Hearst
PS………I was post #40, until you censored my comment. One minute it was posted and the next it’s been removed by the New York Times.
There are many pro Times posts, but we’ll see if mine is removed once again. I have logs and screen snapshots from my last post and will have them from this one as well.
Your blog censorship will soon be the laughing stock of dozens of other blogs.
I’d like to apply for Jason Blair’s spot, I too have no journalistic credentials…….I’d be perfect!
We’ll try this one more time. I will post my non-obscene comment and we will all watch you censor me….Go ahead, make my day. No one is watching!
Cancel my subscription, John Q, Citizen
William Hearst
Once again, some highly trained, very discerning, NYT sanctioned arbiter of free speech decided what speech is appropriate on their site. I find this to be ironic.
Is this not censorship?
I will post the text log.
I move to amend the editorial... "There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public's interest or Al Qaeda's interest." the piece continued. "We make our best judgment."
Bill Sammons made the point today that there is no benefit to anyone in America (other than terrorists hiding their cells and activities) when the LA and NY Times expose the program of bank activity tracking of terrorist suspects. The papers are the only ones benefiting and this by supporting their agenda to get at the administration by whatever means they can regardless of harm it may do to this nation. That simplification of the issue seemed brilliant to me ... this nation would be better off without the LA and NY Slimes even going to print when it comes to the war against terrorists. The idiot Elenor Cliff tried to defend the indefensible by citing the publication of the Penatgon Papers as a similar benefit to the US, an exercise so desperate in its stupidity as to immediately expose the bankruptcy of the leftists! These are the enemy within, as they have now so openly proven.
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.