Times Newsroom Evacuated As Bill Keller’s Ego Threatens To Explode
The executive editor of the Times is taking on a bit of a messiah complex:
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.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.
It’s an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.
Read that bit about ‘conservative bloggers’ and tell me the New York Times doesn’t have a liberal bias; then watch as I laugh, loudly, and longly, in your face.
Michael Barone is not buying what Keller is selling:
Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. “We have listened closely to the administration’s arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration,” Bill Keller is quoted as saying. It’s interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and his colleagues weren’t smirking or cracking jokes. “We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”
This was presumably the view as well of the “nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives” who were apparently the sources for the story.
But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times’ December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage Act. Commentary’s Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and probably should be prosecuted.
The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government’s ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.
Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?
Well said, sir…
I agree with Keller that “an aggressive, independent press [is] a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy.” Unfortunately, he provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such an abuse has occurred or is likely to occur given the safeguards in place. Absent any actual abuse, the New York Times is merely telling tales out of school that hurt others. There is nothing principled or noble about their actions, no matter how much they tout their view of the role of a free press in a democracy. They should be held accountable for their actions…sooner rather than later.
There are only three methods of pursuing action-
1. seek civil damages, or await a ‘victim/proxy’ to seek damages-good luck on getting the sufficient proof.
2. seek criminal prosecution(Peter King)-also difficult because the bottom line is-”Govt jails press”
or 3…
Make the case for one and two, but never do anything legally.
The mantra will become, “buy the NYT, support terrorism”. Perhaps this is the most effective, although when they were doing the “buy pot, support terrorism”-I was far from convinced. The tie between the NYT and terrorism is a thousand times easier to make. and will affect sales immediately.
The times will continue to layoff their quality components from other departments, all to support their sinking editorial division.
Would like to hear from Kristen Breitweiser…seems if the program was in place pre-9/11, her husband might have been saved. Given that the program died an early death, wonder how many terrorist plots won’t be discovered.
There is a fourth way…something that the admin has been laothe to do-
Go after the leakers. Missed the boat with Plame, the black prisons, and the NSA wiretaps…the pattern here is that they fear to do so. The leakers at the CIa are not some small group, there is a substantial group, emboldened by their previous leaking without retaliation, that need their wings clipped.
I’ve read some really good work, assessing the WH’s fear of pursuing intelligence officers, despite the fact that they are undermining the war effort, offering the theory that they still have other programs that remain vulnerable.
Inspiring that our CIA is now more effective in domestic policy, hiding that fact that they have failed so miserably on foreign matters. Is there any wonder that the President has increased the defense department’s surveillance budget, to compnesate for the loss of effectiveness that the CIA is self imposing?
The notion that “we have a press that is at war with an administration” is baloney, unless you think the press was also at war with the Clinton administration when it obsessed over Whitewater, Monica, Gennifer, etc.
The crux of the issue is whether “those disclosures have reduced the government’s ability to keep us safe” or if the reporting “puts America more at risk of attack.” Unless you think that Al Qaeda is bumbling and stupid, it’s fairly obvious that international financial transactions, as well as phone calls, email, and other communication would be monitored. (Hence the transition to the more informal financial system common in Islam) You accept it as an a priori truth that the reporting of a program which shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone must necessarily make us more at risk of an attack. How exactly does the reporting make us more vulnerable?
Prez slams leak of financial transaction monitoring story
Go get ‘em, tiger:
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. “The disclosure of this program is disgraceful,” he said.
…
“The notion that “we have a press that is at war with an administration” is baloney, unless you think the press was also at war with the Clinton administration when it obsessed over Whitewater, Monica, Gennifer, etc.”
Consciously doing so? no.
But look at the question Bill Yellin asked:
“YELLIN: sir, some news organizations have reported about a program that allows the administration to look into bank records of certain suspected terrorists…”
He had time to write and prepare the question, but note the use of ‘administration’ to represent who had motives and who was doing the looking into. usually you identify a rpogram by the agency doing it.
You could counter that it is the admin’s program, but that denies who is actually using the program. It also impies that memebers of congress were not briefed…
The NYT has failed to pursue this investigation to its logical end. What dem knew and approved it? Why? Who are the victims? If the NYT was worth its salt, they would be asking members of the democratic party why they allowed this, especially if it was ‘just the adminstration’s program’.
Is Yellin biased? Consciously, no.
It’s the administartion’s war, it’s the administrations’s wiretapping
…it gives a free pass to the democrats who voted for the war, and a free pass to the dems who knew and said nothing about the wiretapping.
Don’t you wonder why they let it go?
There is a much larger issue of the way the NYT has divorced itself, from an active role in ‘inciting and leading’ us to war.
I jest in some ways, because the NYT defense is ‘the administration made us do it’ seems widely believed. It works for democratic members of Congress who voted for it, and the times has taken that position. Which is in direct denial of what was said about Iraq, pre 9/11, pre- Bush administration by the very same NYT and democrats. In hiding/denying its complicity it hamstrings it from discussing the inconsistencies of supporting a war, and now opposing it for dems.
My one question to Bill Keller:
What line would you choose not to cross?
(Reporting of a secret program designed to capture people who are trying to kill us seems fair agme, when weighed against the injustices sufferred by ‘no one’. Find a ‘no one’ and then protect their rights, until we have a name/ a victim, your story has done nothing except hurt our effort.)
1) Well, it was the administration’s program – I think identifying it as such (e.g., as opposed to the NSA) is a distinction without a difference.
2) Re briefing Democrats in Congress: this may be similar to the NSA wiretap program – Democrats (e.g., Jay Rockefeller) were briefed, but they were sworn to secrecy and couldn’t do anything about it. At this point, we don’t know.
3) The Democrats who voted for the war should get a free pass. First, when a President asks Congress to send troops, there is a heavy burden on a Congressman to support the President’s request. You don’t make a “no” vote lightly. Secondly, two Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (Gruening and Morse): does that mean that the other 98 were bound to support the VietNam war in perpetuity? Finally, the information given to Congress was incomplete, misleading, and cherry-picked. How can you assign blame to someone for making a decision when they were not given all of the facts?
“My one question to Bill Keller: What line would you choose not to cross?”
I can’t speak for Bill Keller, obviously, but precedent would suggest that the line not to be crossed is, for example, troop movements and locations. When Geraldo Rivera told his audience the location of American troops, that crossed the line. A general description of a program falls well short of that.
The tact of redefining the current conflict is undermining the effort of those who would like to see a substantial withdrawal.
By making it the ‘adminstration’s war’ as opposed to an American war, it has allowed those who would otherwise feel guilt in the loss of life, to project it upon the administration. Guilt and responsibility lifted, the potentailly most vocal, are rendered silent.
Peter-
A secret ‘legal’ program that was used to protect our country, was uncovered. What was gained must be measured against what was lost.
We lost an effective tool in the war on terrorism.
You, and the NYT, must be able to tell me what was gained.
I’ll answer it for you.
Something nebulous, with no defining metric-but still worth it in both your own and the NYT eyes.
It is an irony, that on the issue of completing this war until successful, I take the side of the nebulous against the metric of us casualties, and Iraqi deaths. (Just saw that they have 50k dead since the occupation. That would be the equivalent of 600,000 US deaths, converting for population. The impliction is not lost on me, but also makes me wish to redouble our effort.)
“Finally, the information given to Congress was incomplete, misleading, and cherry-picked.”
v. Bush lied.
The first is a fair, although I disagree to some extent, the latter is ignorant.
The press has shaded towards the ignorant, because their tacit involvement in the first case is jsut too damning to discuss. Now Keller is ‘projecting’ his frustration at the WH. Not psychotic, but definitely neurotic.
Keller’s sole reason for reporting on this program was (in his words), in the matter of “the public interest.” Funny, but who made him the final arbiter of what the “public interest” should be?Given his set of parameters here, anything could be considered the public interest. A completely meaningless term which means absolutely nothing, and the fact that he refuses to be interviewed on this matter makes him look to be quite suspect regarding his intentions.
Is there anyone among the US public that are down on their knees, thanking Mr. Keller for publicizing this program? Other than the nuttier cases on the far Left, I’ve yet to hear any sane folks arguing this point.
Re post 12: assuming that the bank monitoring was an “effective tool in the war on terrorism” – an uncertain proposition given Al Qaeda’s reported use of informal means to transfer funds, outside the normal banking channels – why do you assume that we “lost” this capability? It seems to me that the only possible vulnerability is if any terrorist existed who was blithely unaware that his financial transactions would be looked at – and who decided not to use the international banking system once he read last week’s New York Times. This seems to me to be too far-fetched to be plausible.
Re post 13: the fact that the public’s right to know is not quantifiable does not mean that this right does not exist. Governments have used national security as a smokescreen to obscure things which were embarrassing probably since Washington’s time. The Pentagon Papers case is a good example: by revealing classified information, the Papers revealed that the Johnson administration lied about air strikes in Laos and North VietNam, as well as other falsehoods. The Supreme Court recognized that the public’s right to know outweighed the government’s right to withhold information by classifying it. Perhaps you disagree with this Court decision, but it is the current law of the land.
Re post 14: I have never written that Bush lied, because I can’t look into his heart and determine his motives. Let’s just say that Bush and Cheney made statements leading to the war which show a reckless disregard for the truth.
” an uncertain proposition given Al Qaeda’s reported use of informal means to transfer funds, outside the normal banking channels – why do you assume that we “lost” this capability?”
When I hear that both chairmen of the 9/11(Keane and Hamilton) commission and Tim roehmer, along with several other people in a position to know, directly advised the NYT not to do this.
I too questioned its efficacy, but clearly it had bipartisan support that it remain secret.
In 13 I was just pointing out the diffuclty in comparing a known quantity to an unknown. The death that has resulted from Iraq is a painful metric, the gain is not materially tangible. I have been feeling that I’m on weak footing, supporting the war, despite failing to provide the applicable basis for our effort. good to see that you now must make the same argument, on the poor footing I held, if it is only to defend our right to know.
A poster on professorbainbridge.com writes:
“If I had to chose between a free press that printed things the government wanted secret and a press that withheld information from me every time the government claimed it was a matter of national security I would take my chances with the free press every time.”
Sounds good to me.
Every time?
A newspaper decides to print the exact specifications of how to build a nuclear bomb…and they could argue it is common knowledge and the public has a right to know. In theory the govt could use a bomb against its citizens, and the citizens have a right to defend themselves.
Also wish that the press was equally respectful of the individuals right to bear arms, as they are of their own ‘imagined freedoms’. But then the press(an organization) has more rights than the individual.
Holding someone responsible/accountable, denies their right to freedom from being held responsible. Sounds silly, but this is where the press would have us go with their own responsiblity.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We the press of the united states don’t give a rat’s *ss about providing for the common defense, that’s ‘people’ work.
As noted above, I think that you can reasonably draw a distinction between revealing troop movements or the construction of a nuclear weapon and the general description of a covert program. The first two instances have specific information which could create obvious problems, and the second does not. The public does not necessarily have the right to know the first two — or, more precisely, security concerns trump the right to know — but with the third instance, there is a clear right to know what the goverment is doing.
I frankly don’t understand the newsworthiness of all this. The administration has been saying for years that it would stop the flow of money going to and among terrorists. Now the Times prints a story which says they have been doing just that. What’s the big deal?
Yeah, hell, what’s the big deal? Blow the cover off of all our operations, they’re not doing anybody any good, after all.
Oh, and now Belgium is acting like they may kill the program - but it’s that darn Bush, who cares about national security?
And of course, bipartisan pleas not to reveal the program were made because these people just wanted some face time with Keller…
And peter, a question – do you think the NY Times frontpaged the story to congratulate Bush on his pursuit of the terrorist money?…
“I frankly don’t understand the newsworthiness of all this.”
It was my initial rxn, as I thought nobody could be that stupid to think that we won’t watch the flow of money. Judging by the 9/11 commssioners, who the NYT chose to ignore, it was a big deal.
I just saw Susskind on Hardball, and his take was the program was ‘diminishing’ in effectiveness anyway. I did not take this as the equivalent that it had no merits. If it used to catch all terrorists, but now only captures the dumb (or the hurried), I’d still take it.
(Speaking of Hardball-what a line-up-the NYT’s Susskind, WaPo’s Ignatius, and Newsweek’s Evan Thomas-discussing the NYT v. administration in a ’roundtable’ with Chris? This was a joke.)
Once again, Keller needs to explain how “the public interest” was served by this discosure. The fact that he’s ducking and running shows he has no courage in his convictions, and that this was nothing more than yellow journalism designed to hurt the administration that they so heartily loathe.
Still waiting for all of those folks in the “public” who are hopping up and down with joy over this story. Not only that, but not one Dem has come out for this disclosure so far – not one.
1) The administration has repeatedly said since 9/11 that tracking financial transactions among terrorists is a key to defeating them. How exactly did the Times “blow the cover” off the story?
2) Re the front page: the story also ran on the front page of the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal. Do you suppose the Journal ran the story on the front page to embarrass Bush?
3) This is an administration which has regularly leaked information to the press such as misleading intelligence reports (to the Times, among other papers) as well as the identity of a covert agent. Now they are shocked – shocked! – that something they have talked about for years is reported in the paper.
Did you see a similar outrage when Geraldo Rivera disclosed troop locations on Fox News? Of course not. The administration is much better at pointing fingers than accepting accountability, and could there be a better embodiment of elitist Eastern liberalism than the Times? I think that between now and November, you’ll see the Republicans running against the New York Times in addition to the Democrats – that is, when they have the time after they finish protecting us against flag burners –