1
   

After Holding Off a Year, NY Times Scores Big Scoop re snoop

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 10:43 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 11:01 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 11:07 am
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2005 11:35 am
Is the Times Even More Cut Off than George Bush?
Paper in a Bubble: Is the Times Even More Cut Off than George Bush?
Arianna Huffington
12.19.2005

More from French Polynesia. We are now in Moorea, a stunning little island 9 miles northwest of Tahiti. As a Greek, I probably should not be saying this, but this is the most beautiful island I've ever seen. It's easy to see why Marlon Brando fell in love with the area when he was here in 1960 scouting locations for "Mutiny on the Bounty" -- parts of which were shot in Moorea -- and eventually bought the small neighboring island of Tetiaroa.

In between feeding the stingrays, I'm doing my best to keep up with the news. The NSA surveillance story isn't big news here. The top stories in recent copies of the Tahiti Presse I picked up were about a budget battle between President Temaru and the opposition party (which is threatening to challenge the budget in court), and the Temaru administration's hope that a new film about a Tahitian fisherman who survived 118 days after being lost at sea, will draw tourists to the area.

But, thankfully I can access the Internet, so I've been able to watch online as the New York Times blows it once again.

Okay, set your watch: it's now officially time to be worried about the future of the erstwhile paper of record.

What were Sulzberger and company thinking? There Pinch was, prancing around for the last year under the illusion that his defense of Judy Miller was going to be his reputation-making Pentagon Papers moment, while doing the exact opposite of what his father did with the Pentagon Papers by sitting on this bombshell story for a year.

Now, instead of crusading journalists, Sulzberger and his editors look like a bunch of schmucks -- or, worse, a bunch of toadies doing the White House's bidding.

Adding big-time to the schmuck factor was Bill Keller's ludicrous explanation that the Times agreed to sit on the story after the White House "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."

Oh, my god. Where to begin?

Who is "everyone involved?" Sulzberger? Keller? Karl Rove? And exactly how were they "satisfied"? Given that members of Bush's own party -- like Arlen Specter, who is now planning hearings -- are obviously not"satisfied," what kind of miniscule satisfaction threshold does the Times have? Even given all that we learned from the Miller debacle, I would have assumed the paper would still set the bar just a tad higher than members of Bush's own party.

And how did the Timesmen come by that unanimous satisfaction? It's not like the administration's credibility problems weren't already well-known known before it asked the Times to keep its readers in the dark. (For a nice list of what we already knew about Bush a year ago, check out this post at First Draft).

And since when is being faced with the tired "national security argument" enough to frighten away the Times? (It's the same ploy John Mitchell used when trying to get Pinch's dad to spike the Pentagon Papers story in '71). C'mon, let's be real: isn't invoking national security Bush's default setting?

Back in October, we noted how the Times' handling of the Miller case might have helped Bush win re-election. And now we learn that the paper did Bush/Cheney 2004 another huge favor by not going with the spy story when it first had it -- before the election. As Will Bunch puts it in this terrific post, "Simply put, the Bush White House gamed the media in 2004... Voters could have gone to the polls on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2004, knowing that Bush was spying on Americans, that a key White House aide was charged with felonies, and that the initial rationales for Iraq were bogus." And check out emptywheel for chapter and verse on the connections between the Miller and NSA spying stories.

So here's the inevitable question all this raises: What else is the Times sitting on? How many other instances of Bush administration illegality has the Times been "satisfied" that we don't need to know. Could we at least have a rough estimate?

There's been much talk about the bubble that George Bush lives in, but if he ever finds that his model is too porous, he should check out the one that Sulzberger, Keller, and the Times have crafted for themselves.

Even after the Miller fiasco, it's clear that those in charge of the Times still haven't figured out the fundamental nature of the crisis that has arisen between the paper and its readers. So let me spell it out for them:

The paper is in grave danger of losing its relevance because the public can no longer trust that the very first instinct of the Times when it comes across a piece of news is, "Is this something important for our readers to know?" instead of, "Who might we piss off if we publish this?"

The future of the Times hinges on its ability to convince its readers that its loyalty flows to the public and not to the powers-that-be.

After the Supreme Court freed the Times to resume publication of the Pentagon Paper in 1971, Times managing Abe Rosenthal was asked whether some degree of antagonism between the government and the press was "a sign of good health in both parties." He replied: "I think it is. I don't think we'll ever see the day, nor should we see the day, when we're in bed together."

It's a tragedy that Abe's crystal ball gazing turned out to be so wrong.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Dec, 2005 11:59 am
Media Veterans, NYT Staffers, re Latest Spy Story Reports
Media Veterans, NYT Staffers, Weigh in On Latest Spy Story Reports
By Joe Strupp
Published: December 20, 2005
NEW YORK

Reports in the past day that The New York Times held its secret spying story since before election day 2004, and may have decided to finally publish the bombshell partly to beat a book on the subject, have sparked new criticism of the paper from media veterans for its handling of the sensitive story. As Marvin Kalb put it: "This is, again, a story large enough for journalists to scratch their heads."

But while most urged the paper to better explain what went into the decision-making process, others praised the Times' journalistic effort and stressed that the onus should be on what the Bush administration is doing, not the paper.

"I think the Times certainly deserved credit for breaking a good story," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists and a former Times Washington bureau chief. "But that story needed an editor's note that described why they were publishing it and why they held it. The timing and the reasons for holding it raise questions."

In the Times newsroom, meanwhile, few staffers would comment, even off the record, on how the latest controversy had affected the paper that is still reeling from the Judy Miller debacle. Some noted a weariness over the paper continuing to be hammered for its actions, while others were angry that people were ignoring the fact that the paper broke a major story and continued to break others.

"I think people were pleased with the story, that we were back in the game, that we broke it," said Alex Berenson, a six-year Times reporter. "But we've turned into a target -- we have always been a target. It is the way it is. It is the result of some self-inflicted wounds, but I'd say we are doing our job."

Adds one Times staffer who did not want to be identified: "It's one more thing. When are we going to get out from under this or is this a permanent state now?"

Marvin Kalb, the veteran TV journalist and senior fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, said that if reports that the story was timed to beat the upcoming book by reporter James Risen are true, that is cause for concern. "It would be wise for the Times to explain it as soon as it can," Kalb said. "If [Executive Editor] Bill Keller had intended to run the story earlier and delayed it to coincide with the publication of his reporter's book, I think that is a very large mistake."

The Times "owes an explanation to its readers of why it published when it did," said Alex Jones, a former Times media reporter and co-author of "The Trust," a book about the newspaper's family history. "I feel like I don't understand it."

Tom Rosenstiel, a former dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, also took issue with the Times' approach to explaining its actions. "I think it is obviously better for the Times to reveal any facts about the timing that were germane than to have them leak out in Newsweek or the L.A. Times," he said. "They've made an attempt to be transparent, but they didn't do enough. They raise more questions than they've answered."

Risen, who wrote last Friday's spy story with Eric Lichtblau, did not return calls seeking comment on Tuesday's revelations, while New York Times officials also declined to respond to questions from E&P about the latest reports.

On top of everything else, Newsweek claims that Bush "summoned" the New York Times' executive editor and publisher to a meeting this month to talk them out of running the story, which it had held for over a year.

The revelation that the president had met with Times officials to seek a further delay of the story was not a complete surprise to some news veterans, although they were perplexed at why the paper did not disclose that meeting in the original story. "You want news organizations to deliberate when there is a challenge on national security grounds," Rosenstiel said of the meeting with Bush. "The news organization has to evaluate." But, he added, more disclosure of the meeting was warranted: "Ten years ago, it is possible that a news organization would have said nothing. But we are beyond that."

Kovach, who served as the Times' Washington bureau chief from 1979 to 1987, said Bush's effort to delay publication is not unusual for a president, citing several instances during his tenure in D.C. of similar administration moves. He noted a 1980 phone call from Ronald Reagan to then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Sr., asking that the paper not publish findings that the U.S. was spying on the Soviet Union from locations in China. "The argument was that if we ran the story, China would be embarrassed and want us out," Kovach said. "I was opposed to holding it, but we did and someone else broke it."

Still, Kovach was surprised that the Times would not mention the Bush meeting as part of a full disclosure. "I don't know what would be wrong with saying the president had [directly] asked them to hold it," he said. "As much information as possible is important to the reader. They have to be able to depend on you to tell them."

Others say that the powerful journalism underlying this latest controversy should be the issue, not the related elements. Some even accused the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek of going after the spy story out of jealousy for being beaten. "There is a great scoop getting lost in the shuffle," said one reporter who requested anonymity. "But, once again, why can't top editors be straight about what's going on? There are a lot of questions about why wait a year and why now?"

So what does this mean to the Times' image and reputation going forward?

"I think it is still the best newspaper by far in the nation," said Gene Roberts, the legendary former Philadelphia Inquirer editor, who also served as Times managing editor from 1994 to 1997. "They are human and make mistakes as any organization composed of humans is going to make. I don't buy all of this trouncing on them."

Rosenstiel agreed, saying, "the paper's image and reputation took some hits on Judy Miller, but they're looking a lot better today journalistically than they did a month ago," he said. "They are still playing a watchdog role."

For Kalb, however, the lack of a clear explanation, especially after the Miller scandal, is not helpful. "The Times is too central, too important, and too fundamental to the heart of American journalism to be in the middle of a series of chronic crises," he said. "The Times has to be setting an example for the rest of American journalism. It shouldn't be constantly having to explain why it did this or did that."

His Shorenstein Center colleague, Alex Jones, said the paper may have had a good reason for doing what it did, but it needs to tell readers. "We are entitled to know," he said. When asked if this controversy combined with the Miller flap would cause permanent harm to the Times, he said, "It is a paper with a black eye, but these things heal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strupp ([email protected]) is a senior editor at E&P.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Dec, 2005 10:26 am
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:56:45