A History of Publishing, and Not Publishing, Secrets

The New York Slimes ^ | 7/2/06 | SCOTT SHANE

[Enchante]

KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made "tragic" mistakes.

Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.

"This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities," Ms. Graham said.

[Enchante]

Amidst all the usual MSM blather about how important they are and how government officials mainly try to avoid embarrassment, the NY Times writer asserts that in 1983 WaPo revealed 5 months before the bombing of the Marine Barracks that the US was able to monitor communications between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. Apparently the late Katherine Graham herself revealed this mega-blunder in talking about the pitfall of publishing sensitive info. This is a HUGE example (if accurate) of the MSM blindly undermining the War on Terror (even if way back in 1983) in a way that led to nearly THREE HUNDRED deaths of US Marines.

[airedale]

No she doesn't say it was the Washington Post she says it was a TV network and a newspaper columnist and she doesn't name the paper. This is from the signed editorial she wrote (originally given as a lecture):

"Tragically, however, we in the media have made mistakes. You may recall that in April 1983, some 60 people were killed in a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut. At the time, there was coded radio traffic between Syria, where the operation was being run, and Iran, which was supporting it. Alas, one television network and a newspaper columnist reported that the U.S. government had intercepted the traffic. Shortly thereafter the traffic ceased. This undermined efforts to capture the terrorist leaders and eliminated a source of information about future attacks. Five months later, apparently the same terrorists struck again at the Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 servicemen were killed.

"This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities."

As you can see the NY Times edited the quote and left things out without ellipses or indicating that they'd done this. That's a big NO NO for most journalist. But I guess it's OK if your working for the NY Times. I wonder which network and which paper the columnist worked for? Perhaps it was the NY Times.

[Enchante]

Moderator, could you kindly correct my headline (please delete the reference in brackets to WaPo treason). Apparently the NY Times writer gave the false impression that Graham was talking about WaPo.

Airedale, thank you for the correction and the useful details. From the NY Times piece I thought she was making a confession on behalf of WaPo. You are right, it was very selective, misleading editing of the quote.

[Enchante]

"I wonder which network and which paper the columnist worked for? Perhaps it was the NY Times."

Yes, we really need to find out and publicize this info. If Graham's account is roughly accurate, this is a most egregious and outrageous example of how MSM fondness for pushing sensitive info into the newstream can lead to success for our enemies and death for many of our own Marines, soldiers, and/or allies. Classified or not, any "journalist" who thinks it's good practice to reveal such info about code-breaking or other types of monitoring enemy communications obviously has an agenda..... just not an American agenda.

[RedRover]

Many thanks for posting. Bill Bennett talked about this on his radio show just this morning. The Times will have blood on its hands.

[Enchante]

What did Bennett say about it? Did he have any more details about who leaked the info, etc.?

[D-fendr]

What the hell is this:

But after the attempted attack on Cuba proved a catastrophe, President John F. Kennedy told a Times editor that he wished the paper had ignored the government's plea — because a more pointed article might have led the C.I.A. to abort the operation.

I thought President John F. Kennedy was president at the time.

[Enchante]

Yes, he was.... I've seen this anecdote a few times through the years, but if true it's PATHETIC..... for JFK to say "gee whiz, NY Times, I sure wish you had gone ahead and published classified info about an impending operation so that you could have saved me from my own blundering!" Maybe a better solution would have been for JFK not to be such a whiner, for it was HIS changes in the operational plans, such as pulling virtually all air support in an absurd attempt to hide US "fingerprints" that doomed the operation. Wishing for the NY Times to save him from himself is just silly.

[RedRover]

I'm not sure what Bennett said. I read about it here...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659775/posts

Also, I checked the best history, THE ROOT: THE MARINES IN BEIRUT (by Eric Hammel) and there is no mention of the Washington Post at all. This may take more digging.

[RedRover]

Correction. Should have said, no reference to the media report--not just the Washington Post.

[VOA]

bump

[Enchante]

I've posted a thread with the Katherine Graham column from 1986 here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659889/posts