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.