'NYT' Gets Strong Blog Response to Holding Spying Story -- Keller Offers Explanation

EditorandPublisher.com ^ | Dec. 16, 2005 | E&P Staff

[summer]

NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller, in hot water with bloggers

NEW YORK - The New York Times' revelation on Friday of a presidential order signed in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency to spy on hundreds of people inside the U.S. -- and the newspaper's decision to hold off on the report for a year at the request of the White House -- has inspired a wide reaction, including at the paper's Web site itself.

For one of the first, if not the first, time with a major story, the Times has included a prominent link right under a bombshell story that takes readers to a variety of postings by bloggers. The Washington Post online has been carrying blog reactions for some time.
The bloggers who get links at the Times today include conservatives Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit, Hindrocket of Powerline and Michelle Malkin (she denounces the "civil liberties Chicken Littles" at the paper), as well as a sampling of liberals such as DailyKos. The paper does not link to Matt Drudge, who today has been accusing the paper of only publishing the story now because co-author James Risen has a book on this general subject coming out soon.

It also does not link directly to Will Bunch, the award-winning Philadelphia Daily News reporter who writes the "Attytood" blog there, but it does link to Romenesko -- which links to Bunch.

In any case, Bunch charges that the Times likely had this shocking information before the November 2004 election, and if it had come out with it then it would have sunk Bush's chances for re-election. He also mentions that this comes on top of Times' reporter Judith Miller not coming forward in the Plame case last year, which allegedly also helped Bush win. The media got "gamed" in the election, he declares.

Referring to today's story, Bunch writes: "We'd like to know a lot more about how this all transpired -- who talked to whom at the Times, and when did they talk? Did the pleading come before Nov. 2, 2004, or after? Was anyone on the White House political side -- i.e., Karl Rove -- involved? You would think that after the Judy Miller fiasco, the Times would be much, much more transparent in the backstory of how this story was published. But you would think wrong... ."

Later in the day, however, the Times released a statement by Executive Editor Bill Keller, which read in part:

"We start with the premise that a newspaper's job is to publish information that is a matter of public interest. Clearly a secret policy reversal that gives an American intelligence agency discretion to monitor communications within the country is a matter of public interest. From the outset, the question was not why we would publish it, but why we would not.

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.

"Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

" the bogus Missing Weapons from Iraq Depots story."
I did not write this story!
Dr. Bogus

[processing please hold]

The NYT and Democrats leaking and playing politics with ALL of our lives.

And getting away with it.

[Echo Talon]

yep, we had a Valerie Plame investigation...
Now I want to know who leaked this.

[Jonah Johansen]

Just a coincidence that the story was published on the same day as the Iraqi election and patriot act was up for renewal.

[Zon]

More obfuscation and omission. This time by the NYT Executive Editor, Bill Keller.

Just as Friday's NYT article did, Keller evades The Point: The President has legal authority to use wiretaps without a warrant. And President Bush abided the legal requirements to brief  an congressional oversight committee. Plus, President Bush was not the first President to use this legal surveillance..

In short, it was and is, a non story  Albeit the with the approval of NYT executive editor Bill Keller, a fabricated a story. For it clearly wasn't a reporting of facts.

[Owl558]

"The number of people who think the President should not chase down spies and terrorists approximates the number who want to go see a movie about two gay shepherds pretending to be cowboys..."

Exactly. The public has more common sense than all the NYT reporters combined. They will poll on the question, if they haven't already, and will discover that the public EXPECTS a president to protect the country in time of war.

Duh

[Tarpon]

Obviously in their thorough research the NY Times forgot to read the applicable FISA laws. If they had, they would have noted the exemptions. The Times could have followed that up by reading the three war resolutions passed by Congress.

I guess this is what is called research, ignoring things that might destroy your argument.

What was really in play is the NY Times thought people were going to be stupid enough to buy their drivel and not do the research. Bad bet old gray DNC parrot.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is terminal at the NY Times.

[processing please hold]

Will we ever know who leaked it? The plame game isn't a true story and look at the press it receives. The leaker won't get the press, it goes against everything the LSM stands for...scandal and lies. Whereas another lie, Bush surveillance has him convicted. We'll never get truthful news till we can destroy the old grey whore and her sister satellites.

[pabianice]

[Echo Talon]

I hope they have an investigation. Thats all we can ask for.

[processing please hold]

I agree and pray we get a REAL investigation, not another 9-11 cover up commission.

[TUX]

The thing driving the hysteria is the prospect of drying up foreign moneys coming into this country to fund lib activities.

The foreign terrorist organizations and individuals funding propaganda and internal cells are identified. Its the enemy within that is unidentified.

[summer]

Well, I've read Michelle Malkin's blog, and she was really very much against what the NYT did, which is not the impression given by this E&P article.

Meanwhile, over at Huffington Post, they have a bunch of articles about impeachment!

So, I think we are talking about an all-out public relations/political war here in the US.

As for myself, it would seem to me the president legally has wider powers during a time of war -- and unlike the Vietnam War, this war WAS authorized by Congress.

In addition, the 9-11 terrorists were located, guess where, yes, right here, on US soil, prior to their actions. Consequently, it seems logical to me what the president did. If he didn't do it, people would probably be criticizing him for not utilizing all his authority in a time of war.

But the left is really making this out to be an imeachable offense, in no uncertain terms. I don't know that the American people will buy this angle.

[festus]

However, I am finding it a bit of stretch to believe a blogger actually thinks the NYT did that to "help" GW win the election in 2004

I've gone over and looked at the "other side" a few times. There are many of them who actually believe the press is run by the conservatives.

Shocking but true.

[summer]

They have been angry at the NYT for awhile. So, all that anger is now in overdrive.

[Cboldt]

Good link, One comment in there reads ...

The decision (which the Supreme Court later declined to review) was really not about whether the government could conduct surveillance without warrants, but whether intelligence agencies who already had information could pass information on to the FBI even though the FBI didn't have a warrant. The lower court's decision read, "We do not believe that an expectation that information lawfully in the possession of a government agency will not be disseminated, without a warrant, to another government agency is an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."

The difference between the surveillance conducted on Jabara and the surveillance in question now is that, in fact, no surveillance was conducted on Jabara - the NSA was monitoring international communications for certain key words, and intercepting those communications that contained those key words. Some of Jabara's communications were thus intercepted. The issue today is that FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, deals with "intentional" surveillance, which appears to be what the Bush administration was allowing without warrants, something FISA makes clear is a no-no.

Also, a couple case citations ...

Salisbury v. United States, aff'd, 690 F.2d 966 (DC Cir. 1982).
United States v. Jabara, 644 F.2d 574

I haven't studied any of it, and offer no opinion here.

[AmishDude]

It's quite simple: Once people know the facts of this operation, they aren't the least bit concerned and it makes the president look good. The only way this story works is if it is a blindside.

[processing please hold]

I don't know that the American people will buy this angle.

Half of the American people did vote for sKerry, the traitor.

[summer]

Not only that, but here is where I have to part ways with my own Dem friends who I still love dearly, as I would like to say to them: Yes, OK, you are totally innocent of any wrongdoing -- but you're always out there recruiting new members; it's certainly possible a terrorist might want to join your ranks for cover. Ever think of that???