'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)

[summer]

Well, according to this article, the right wing, as well as left wing, bloggers are furious at the NYT for withholding the spying story for over a year.

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 -- from above article:

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.

[summer]

FYI.

[summer]

FYI.

[b4its2late]

It's all lies.

[areafiftyone]

Seems like the NYT forgot to mention this little story that was posted in their paper:

From NewsBusters"

N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight

Posted by Mithridate Ombud on December 20, 2005 - 13:32.

Dear journalists of the New York Times,
Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications.

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''

[Cicero]

Keller still doesn't mention Risen's forthcoming book, which is obviously one of the chief reasons, if not the only reason, why they decided to publish the story now.

Sleazy conflict of interest, as well as treason.

[winner3000]

(it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.)

From the beginning of this article it shows that the Times was fully aware that this information if published compromised our National Security. The above quote shows that they finally decided to publish it because someone inside the government (a liberal) told them to do it anyway.

New York Times are scumbags. If they think they will deflect the public outcry for publishing this by publishing selective criticisms as to why they didn't publish it immediately, they truly then have no clue how pissed Americans are at their treasonous behavior.

[atomicpossum]

Clearly a secret policy reversal that gives an American intelligence agency discretion to monitor communications within the country is a matter of public interest.

Lie.

[summer]

I haven't looked at the bloggers' links, but what are these conservative bloggers saying to the NYT? From article:

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),

Are they, too, actually peeved this story was withheld by the NYT???

[NEPA]

Good find

[EQAndyBuzz]

"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."

I believe the opposite wa strue. The Times did not release this before the election because it would make the libs out to be anti American wussies and it would sink Kerry with his anti war rhetoric.

How convenient that it also comes out the week of a Times reporters book deal.

[jimbergin]

"Are they, too, actually peeved this story was withheld by the NYT???"

not that I can see from their blogs!

[b4its2late]

I believe so due to the timing of the whole thing.

[LdSentinal]

If you remember, right before the election, the NY Times and CBS News ran the bogus Missing Weapons from Iraq Depots story.

[Wasanother]

I've been writing a number of NY Slimes advertisers and have advised them that I don't like them advertising in such a bias media source and for that reason I will no longer purchase their products. I have also advised them that I will post my opinion and actions on a very, very large website with like-minded persons.

[Eva]

This is just a red herring to distract from the late filing of the story and the fact that there was no "policy reversal", none at all. Rush pointed out a court decision on this subject, reported in the NYT, from 1982.

[Jim Noble]

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.

More likely, it would have produced a GOP landslide.

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...

[Echo Talon]

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

[Toskrin]

When it comes to this level of classified information, The NYT is in way over their heads. There is no way they can place any piece of classified information into proper context, because the context is also classified. Honest people who know the truth can't divulge it - that leaves only scoundrels to supply bits and pieces of information.

According to the latest WSJ article, this whole thing was approved by the FISA court and has legal precendent. But those details would be classified too, as it would involve specifics of how the monitoring is done.

I could care less if they sat on the story for a day, a week, or a year. How long doesn't matter. There are only two choices - run the story, or don't. They ran it.