Newspapers Reject White House Request to Kill Records Story

Those who seek to deny the basic and fundamental freedoms of said <b>free</b> society can only be said to be its enemy, okie.

Cycloptichorn

Who is denying anybody's freedoms for crying out loud? All that is occurring here is basic investigation of people transfering money for the purposes of killing you, and me.

The analogy is not absolute nimh.

Reread: Wanton disregard for the consequences of one's actions can, legally, be said to imply intent.
Those actions do not necessarily need to lead directly to lethal consequences.

The NY Times revealed sufficient specifics about a previously successful covert program to render it, if not useless, seriously impaired.

It is a feeble argument to suggest that none of this was news to the Islamo-fascists, and therefore the impairment of the program is much ado about nothing. Of course if that were the case, the program never would have led to any of the enemy being captured, and we know that is not so.

People who advance such an argument seem to have incredibly high regard for the intelligence capabilities of the Islamo-fascists - obviously reading too many NY Times bestselling potboiler suspense novels. After the invasion of Afghanistan, US forces found evidence that the enemy had pretty much given up on the notion of chemical or biological weapons until they read a piece in Time magazine that revealed just how easy it might be to use such weapons and how vulnerable we are to them.

The program will not be as effective as it was prior to it's unfortunate reveal, and for this we have all of the newspapers who revealed it to thank.

So, what has my or other other peoples account doing with that? I only bought cd's!

If EVERYBODY knew, then why did the NY SLIMES report it as a SECRET PROGRAM!!!

Obviously, the original reports by the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal were different. I still wonder why, especially, since they were online (and published, re Wall Street Journal, European edition) earlier than the by NYT and didn't say anything different.

That's a good question, even though the orthography of your question could be improved. I don't think this story is page one material. There was no great secret for the New York Times to reveal here, nor for the Bush administration to protect. Only two features make this article interesting: The outbreak of paranoia it caused in the right half of America's political spectrum, and the widespread spinelessness it revealed among its left half. This was the time for all good liberals to take a stand for the freedom of the press. I don't remember any prominent Democrat assuming that responsibility. If that's just my lousy memory, I'd be grateful for pointers.

... and it made my "sparkasse" send me a letter that all my data are still protected and they didn't tell anybody that I bought cd's in the USA

President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you build such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.
President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.
Ambassador de Sadesky: Our source was the New York Times.

I think I remember reading this somewhere. Dr. Strangelove?

Orthography?

Well maybe next time I am in conversation with people of relevance, I will consider your snippy little criticism.

The freedom of the press does come with a responsibility. Since the NY SLIMES has already shown their bias, we can apparently assume they think very little of their responsibility.

Maybe the short answer to your question is the New York Times is the paper most read by terrorists. Maybe we should call it the "Terrorists Daily." After all, reading it would make them feel good at the beginning of every day, with encouragement and tips for their day. Content like, why we are losing in Iraq, why terrorists are no threat, why Saddam was no threat whatsoever, how to avoid prosecution, why prisoners should not be in Gitmo, how smart and clever OBL is, and information on all surveillance activities, how they work, why they are illegal, why Bush is a criminal, a lyer, and how to avoid HIS war on terror.

I don't get to say this very often to you, Thomas, so it pleases me to say: you are correct.

Subscribers to it are to be ... hanged? ... instantly, I suppose.
(Gladly I only have the Wall Street Journal on suscription .... which published that article earlier than the NYT )

The full text is available at both www.nytimes.com and www.latimes.com.

Paulson Defends NSA Coverage, Calls Story a 'Challenge'
Paulson Defends NSA Coverage, Calls Story a 'Challenge'
Frank Folwell/'USA Today'
By Joe Strupp
Published: June 30, 2006 3:50 PM ET

USA Today Editor Ken Paulson defended his paper's reporting on the National Security Agency phone record database program, adding that today's follow up story and editor's note revealing some errors in an initial May report should not diminish the paper's overall accuracy on a serious subject.

"Today's story and editor's note is both a reaffirmation and reappraisal of our earlier reporting," he told E&P. "It reaffirms that there is a national database run by the National Security Agency." But he admitted that it is also an acknowledgement that there were elements of the previous story that cannot be confirmed, specifically that two telecommunications companies, BellSouth and Verizon, contracted with the NSA to provide phone data.

"There is no more complex a story than a report on a secret national security program," Paulson said in defense of the paper's reporting challenges. "There is only a very small universe of people who can provide information in the first place, and even fewer who are in a position to confirm it. You can't go to a library to get this kind of information."

Paulson said it was important for USA Today to update the story and reveal that one part of it could not be verified. But he also stressed that the important and most serious elements of the story -- that a secret program collecting phone data about citizens existed -- was accurate.

"This was a story that became much easier to report after the initial publication," Paulson said, pointing to the fact that the paper has since confirmed the database's existence through 19 members of congress. "Suddenly, there was a new pool of information."

At least seven reporters were involved in the reporting and fact-checking that resulted in USA Today's follow-up story and editor's note, Paulson said. The reporters' initial directive after the first story on May 11 drew some criticism from the telecommunications companies involved. The reporters' directive was to confirm the story's most controversial elements, and find any new information.

"Some were on it all the time, some on a spot basis," Paulson said of the reporters. "Our goal was to establish what was in the database. The intention was to ratify our story, but we discovered that some of that contradicted what we reported and we set it straight."

Paulson said he was wiling to take the heat from critics if it meant that the paper was completely accurate and forthcoming. "We think a big part of maintaining credibility is also telling when some details of your story don't hold up," he said. "We felt we needed to give our readers as much information as possible."

The editor did not blame reporter Leslie Cauley, who authored the May 1 story, praising her work and describing the sources involved as "acting in good faith." Still, he declined to be more specific on how the incorrect information ended up in the paper or further describe the sourcing. "We can't go there," he said.

BBB
The following statement from the newspaper's editor proves that once again, Bush administration phony anger is another election strategy from Karl Rove's play book. ---BBB

"Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat."