By any standard, the New York Times’ story of December 16 was a blockbuster, according to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

Reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated warrantless wiretaps on hundreds of people within the U.S. - including U.S. citizens - even though a federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, expressly forbids the government from doing so. This program was legal only if one accepts the administration’s contention that the executive branch has essentially unlimited powers during “wartime” (even though Congress has not declared war).

The Times story would be an outstanding example of how the First Amendment works to protect liberty - were it not for the ninth paragraph:

“The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.”

The reasoning is absurd on its face. As Times executive editor Bill Keller noted in a statement released on December 16 explaining his decision to publish the story, “The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known.”

But this was as obvious a year ago as it is today. As for the government’s spying being “jeopardized,” placing illegal and unconstitutional programs in jeopardy is the whole point of the First Amendment.

But Keller’s statement revealed that the Times does not see itself as competent to watch out for illegal government activity….

This abdication of the press’s responsibility to watchdog the government is startling….
***
If media oversight of government is at all a significant concern, there are clearly many important questions left unanswered by the Times’ one-paragraph admission of delay and Keller’s wholly unsatisfying elaboration….

One hopes that Keller and Sulzberger would not want their reporters to accept, as an institution’s response to a controversy, a declaration that it would rather not discuss it. Those who have been rebuffed by the Times - reporters from other news outlets, the paper’s public editor and members of the public themselves - should continue to demand answers that make sense.

The Scoop That Got Spiked

We agree with FAIR’s assessment for the most part, even though it is a bit late in coming out and even though the editors at FAIR have ignored our own attempts to inform them about matters related to problems with Times’ reporting on other issues related to the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. It just goes to show you that for some reason, people who live and work in New York think they know more than anyone else on the planet. In my experience working directly with them, I can state categorically that it is just not so : )

Tags: Domestic Surveillance

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 11th, 2006 at 10:27 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.