PressThink: Times Public Editor: Bill Keller Stonewalled Me

Times Public Editor: Bill Keller Stonewalled Me

Let's remember, as we contemplate public editor Barney Calame's stinging Jan. 1 column, "Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence," that Bill Keller hired Calame and he's the only one who can fire him...

Let’s remember, as we contemplate public editor Barney Calame’s stinging Jan. 1 column, Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence, that Bill Keller hired Calame and he’s the only one who can fire him. (His term runs to May, 2007.)

This is relevant because Calame has called Keller’s decision-making “woefully inadequate,” while charging that both Keller and Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. have “stonewalled” him. Also because Steve Lovelady, editor of CJR Daily, has already suggested that Calame’s position may be tenuous. “Keller and Sulzberger have finally run head on into an honest man who will not bend; and he has the balls to tell both of them that they have come up wanting,” said Lovelady in the comments to my previous post, “I’m Not Going to Talk About the Back Story.” He added: “I think it’s time to start speculating who will be the Times’s next public editor.”

Keller anticipated this situation in an exchange in 2003 with Geneva Overholser, former ombudsman of the Washington Post. (I wrote about it here.) Overholser had criticized the Times’ decision to allow Keller to hire and fire the public editor. It would not guarantee the same kind of independence the Post ombudsman had by virtue of having a contract with the publisher, she said. I am going to quote his reply at some length because it has renewed meaning now that Calame has challenged Keller on the refusal to answer 28 questions about the Dec. 15 article revealing warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. Here’s what Keller wrote in 2003:

First, I’m not so sure that the critical guarantee of independence lies in the nature of the contract. I can readily imagine an ombudsman supplied with all the contractual assurances of independence — long tenure, a dimissal-proof contract, a weekly column — who would still be timid in criticizing the paper, because of lack of self-confidence or a desire to preserve relationships with colleagues or an ingratiating personality. I can also imagine a person of integrity and uncompromising judgment who would be independent even knowing that I had the power to fire him or her. Indeed, I could argue that the latter situation confers GREATER, not lesser, leverage. I can render a tenured, “independent” ombudsmen ineffective simply by ignoring the advice, and who will really notice? But If I fire my supposedly less independent ombudsman, I’m inviting a whale of a scandal. My point is, the independence rests mainly in the character of the person who holds the job. And it will be most evident in how he or she performs the job.
Second, the only power I will assert over the ombudsman is the power to hire and fire. I won’t be prescribing procedures or deciding when to publish and when not. As I’ve just said, I fire such a person at my peril. But by hiring such a person, I bestow a declaration of trust and authority that should enable the ombudsman to influence the internal workings of the paper on behalf of readers. A person who has the executive editor’s blessing carries some weight in a newsroom. Michael Getler’s internal memos are incisive. Do they carry any weight? Or do editors and reporters treat them as an annoyance? I don’t know. As you say, the internal role is, if anything, more important than the external role. Isn’t it possible that having a public editor who is appointed by me and has ready access to me may confer a greater ability to change our culture, to get us to live up to our own responsibilities to readers?

One thing jumps out at me from this statement: Keller’s observation that “the internal role is, if anything, more important than the external role.” Meaning the public editor, acting on behalf of readers, ought to be able to influence the workings of the paper, and not just criticize it. His views should carry some weight. Reflecting on the newsroom committee report that recommended the new positon after the Jayson Blair mess, he told Overholser: “They preferred that the ombudsman be first and foremost the readers’ advocate for changes in and by the paper rather than a columnist whose subject happens to be The Times.”

I guess we’ll see if Calame’s advocacy is effective and carries any weight, but it’s clear that Keller thought it should in 2003. Of course now that there’s a Justice Department investigation of the leaks that led to the wiretapping story, the Times may be even less inclined to go into what Keller called “the back story.”

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times wrote a dismissive, snooty column about those who wondered why the Times held the story for more than a year, and—in the absence of explanations from the Times—took to forming their own theories. Only people who are clueless and paranoid about newspaper journalism would wail about that, he said:

Bill Keller, the Times’ executive editor, responded to all this with a statement saying that “publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim’s forthcoming book or any other event. We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because after listening respectfully to the administration’s objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it.”
Now that isn’t going to satisfy anybody, unless of course they’ve ever been around investigative reporting or newspapers. It is in the nature of investigative reporters to believe in their work and push to get it in the paper yesterday. It’s the job of editors to caution, restrain, rethink, second guess and demand more… Nothing about this should surprise anyone — unless he or she is already convinced that the country’s major newspapers are biased participants in some vast and amorphous conspiracy or his or her brain has gone soft from watching too many reruns of “All the President’s Men.”

“The New York Times deserves thanks and admiration for the service it has done the nation,” Rutten wrote, and I strongly agree with that. (The service continues too.) “Instead, it’s getting bipartisan abuse and another round of endless demands for explanations and ‘transparency.’” That was absurd and misleading. Absurd because “transparency” is a demand that Times has been making on itself for several years. (Again, see my prior post for the details.) As Calame wrote, “I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper’s repeated pledges of greater transparency.”

Rutten’s column was misleading because it suggested that no one with experience, no one in the Big Journalism club, no one who’s “been around investigative reporting or newspapers” would find Keller’s communication with readers lacking. This is simply untrue. Rutten knows it’s untrue because he reads Romenesko.

Among those who were discomforted by the Times unwillingness to adequately explain itself were former Times-men Alex Jones and Bill Kovach, and Tom Kunkel, dean of the J-school at University of Maryland and a former newspaper editor. (For more see Editor and Publisher and CJR Daily.) Now we can add Calame and his 40 years of newspaper experience to that list. Rutten has expressed his skepticism in the past about various transparency demands— a defensible position. But he refuses to acknowledge that this is a live debate among his peers. It’s just easier to pretend that clueless outsiders and know-nothing bloggers are the ones who want more transparency from the Times.

Influenced by Rutten, Jason Zengerle wrote in the New Republic’s blog, The Plank, that “if the Times and most other media outlets actually abided by Rosen’s transparency prescription, they wouldn’t be able to produce first-rate stories like the one about the NSA’s warrantless surveillance. Rather, they’d be spending all their time working on meta stories.”

He said that it was my lack of newsroom experience that permitted me to make such absurd and impractical suggestions. But here’s Calame (20 years as an editor for the Wall Street Journal) criticizing the Times for failing to live up to its own transparency prescription, which was the whole point of offering mine.

It’s a cliche to end columns with the phrase “stay tuned.” But in this case it’s apt. Reporter James Risen’s book was scheduled for publication mid-month. But it’s been moved up to Tuesday, Jan. 3, according to Calame. He ends his piece with this:

“If Mr. Risen’s book or anything else of substance should open any cracks in the stone wall surrounding the handling of the eavesdropping article, I will have my list of 28 questions (35 now, actually) ready to e-mail again to Mr. Keller.”

After Matter: Notes, reactions and links…

“Hey, Atrios: When was the last time that you exposed such a big story?” That’s Franklin Foer at the New Republic’s blog, The Plank. (MSB=The Mainstream Blogosphere)

Thanks to the MSB’s sweeping, reckless criticisms, the Times has lost much of the credibility and authority that it needs to mount a robust defense. For this, the bloggers deserve some credit. Well done, guys.

Atrios replies: “The Left wants to the press to do a better job, the Right wants to undercut their credibility.” And Foer has a response to that. Also see Armando at Daily Kos who says it’s possible to give praise and support and to criticize.

Michelle Malkin: “Hey, speaking of transparency, why doesn’t Mr. Calame publish his 35 questions so the rest of us can see what his bosses refuse to answer?”

Jeff Jarvis:

Times public editor Byran Calame writes his first almost-tough column taking The Times to task, properly, for not revealing why they did not reveal what they know about warrantless NSA spying — and why they did reveal it when they did.

At TPM Cafe, see Larry Johnson (ex-CIA) on the difference between “officially-sanctioned” leaks and leaks of the whistle blower variety.

While the Bush White House is certain that those responsible for these leaks are political partisans hell bent on damaging the President, it is really a sign that folks on the inside with a conscience finally decided to speak out.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

The Times’ behavior on this story, and the Plame story, has undermined the unwritten “National Security Constitution” regarding leaks and classified information. Since the Pentagon Papers, at least, the rule has been that papers could publish classified information in a whistleblowing mode, but that they would be sensitive to national security concerns. In return, the federal government would tread lightly in investigating where the leaks came from. But the politicization of the coverage, and the outright partisanship of the Times, has put paid to that arrangement. It’s not clear to me that the country is better served by the new arrangement, but unwritten constitutions require a lot of self-discipline on the part of the various players, and that sort of discipline is no longer to be found in America’s leadership circles.

For bloggers reactions to the leak investigation the Justice Department will undertake, see Joe Gandelman’s round-up.

Bill Quick: “I hope they drag every time reporter, editor, and administrator who had anything to do with this story before a grand jury and if they refuse to reveal their sources or other knowledge about the leaks, they clap them in jail until they do.”

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair compare the opening paragraph of the Times Dec. 15 story with this graph from a Seymour Hersh story in the Times 31 years ago: “it’s been a steady run down hill for the New York Times.”

The Central Intelligence Agency, directly violating its charter, conducted a massive, illegal domestic intelligence operation during the Nixon Administration against the antiwar movement and other dissident groups in the United States, according to well-placed Government sources.

Their point: Then the Times directly stated that the operation was illegal. Today, they say, it would never do that.

Andrew Sullivan:

Calame’s Public Editor column today seemed weak to me. The only place the NYT obviously scrwed up was in not disclosing Risen’s forthcoming book. But taking a year to verify an important story, and getting the right sources to firm it up, is good journalism. I find the notion that this somehow undermines national security a little odd. Do we really think al Qaeda members previousloy believed all their calls to the U.S. were free from any surveillance?

Calame added an entry at his web journal re-printing Keller’s two statements to the news media (made in lieu of answering questions.) “Given the paucity of comment from The Times about the article, I think readers might find these statements interesting,” he writes. He also directed readers to other commentary, including PressThink and Rutten.

Katharine Seelye, New York Times: Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet.

Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites. This new weapon in the media wars is shifting the center of gravity in the way that news is gathered and presented…

I am quoted by Seelye thusly: “The printing of transcripts, e-mail messages and conversations, and the ability to pull up information from search engines like Google, have empowered those whom Jay Rosen, a blogger and journalism professor at New York University, calls ‘the people formerly known as the audience.’”

Bill Kovach, a senior statesman of newspaper journalism, former editor of the Atlanta Constitution, former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, was asked how he would characterize 2005 in journalism:

The year was yet another in a string of bad years for a journalism of real value to a self-governing democracy. The New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the world’s great newspapers, lost a great deal of respect from their readers when senior reporters were seen to be more concerned with their access to people and institutions of power than to their readers, and senior editors at both papers seemed unable to manage their reporters.

Kovach says he reads “Instapundit, LA Observed, Buzz Machine, Power Line, Press Think, RealClear Politics, Daily Kos, The Volokh Conspiracy, etc., etc.”

L.A. blogger Patterico published his third annual review of the Los Angeles Times news coverage. The theme is liberal bias. “This year’s installment will cover familiar topics, such as general anti-Republican and pro-Democrat bias, culture wars issues, and media coverage.”

It’s a new blogging year! My five favorite PressThink posts of 2005:

Your nominations (posts or comment threads)?

Many, many thanks to everyone who participated in PressThink comment threads—especially the regulars—and everyone who lurked. People continue to tell me that the comments are what make this weblog totally distinctive on the Net, and I believe that. So cheers and here’s hoping for a year with more truth.

Posted by Jay Rosen at January 1, 2006 1:03 AM Print

Thanks, ami. I think one of the hardest things for professional journalists to accept about the new reality of the Net is what Jane's talking about there: the idea that "the hours and days sifting through raw data now available to average people on the internet" produces real value. They find it impossible to believe that it can be as valuable, and as valid as what they do: producing the "raw material."

The blogger's product has to be second order. It has to be derivative, parasitic. It has to be "mere" reaction, "just" opinion. It just has to be. Don't these bloggers realize that without journalists reporting the news there would be nothing to blog about?

It's kinda amazing to me how many hundreds of times journalists can make this point as if they are loosing it upon the world for the very first time, and no one with a blog ever thought of it. Over and over and over... Without journalists reporting the news there would be nothing to blog about?

Thing is, most bloggers do know that. They will happily admit that without the press they would be lost-- out of business, so to speak. But they also know that what Hamsher said is right: "If you want to know some obscure detail about something Judith Miller did or said in June of 2003 you call emptywheel." (At The Next Hurrah.)

In Monday's New York Times Katharine Seelye has an article for which she interviewed me over a month ago. It's quite good. Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet.

Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites. This new weapon in the media wars is shifting the center of gravity in the way that news is gathered and presented, and it carries implications for the future of journalism.
...The printing of transcripts, e-mail messages and conversations, and the ability to pull up information from search engines like Google, have empowered those whom Jay Rosen, a blogger and journalism professor at New York University, calls "the people formerly known as the audience."

"In this new world, the audience and sources are publishers," Mr. Rosen said. "They are now saying to journalists, 'We are producers, too. So the interview lies midpoint between us. You produce things from it, and we do, too.' From now on, in a potentially hostile interview situation, this will be the norm."

Now here is the part that curves back to our subject:

Reporters say that these developments are forcing them to change how they do their jobs; some are asking themselves if they can justify how they are filtering information. "We've got to be more transparent about the news-gathering process," said Craig Crawford, a columnist for Congressional Quarterly and author of "Attack the Messenger: How Politicians Turn You Against the Media." "We've pretended to be like priests turning water to wine, like it's a secret process. Those days are gone."

Crawford realizes what Keller and Sulzberger, apparently, do not: transparency is an adjustment mainstream journalists have to make to a shift in the balance of power. The shift is happening whether they make the adjustment or not. It's changing the terms on which trust is generated, and that change is unfolding whether journalists recognize it or not.

Keller and Sulzberger (and even more pathetically, Tim Rutten and Jason Zengerle) still think "transparency" is some kind of buzzword or a laughable conceit invented by the cybernetically correct. But really it's about power and the distribution of knowledge.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 2, 2006 1:20 AM | Permalink

Hell, no. The analogy fails on several grounds. First of all, you don't file a civil suit against a court for damages. You appeal its rulings. There is no appealing the editorial judgement of the NY Times.

Second, you cannot bring a successful suit against a government agent, such as a cop, soldier, or judge, for legal actions taken in the course of carrying out his or her duties. You never could. But you can if it's a corporation, pursuing its actions out of a profit motive. That's how corporations are forced to consider the human costs of corporate decisions. That's how corporations are discouraged from manufacturing a defective and dangerous product.

If a news story is factually incorrect and/or compromises national security - ESPECIALLY during a period of armed conflict, then that news organization has manufactured a defective and dangerous product, in pursuit of profit.

If they profit, great. But there must be a meaningful moral hazard to their decision: If someone suffers damages, and can point to the editorial posture of the Times as directly contributing to the events causing those damages, then a jury may be convinced that the victims should be made whole, and find the Times liable, in part, for their reckless disregard of public safety.

Was National Security compromised? I don't think serious observers will doubt that it was. We learn a great deal from SIGINT. Every daily intelligence brief I read in Iraq had a SIGINT component to it that was extremely interesting.

I'll put it this way: Either we were able to monitor Al Qaeda's calls to US residents or we were not. If we were, then it was a valuable intelligence resource, by definition - even if we never picked up evidence of a single op in so doing. Merely the capability is a powerful thing to have.

If we were not able to monitor AQ comms with US residents, then there was no invasion of privacy.

As for the Echelon project, that's old news going back to the late 1990s. What on earth did people think the NSA did all day?

No one yet has been able to demonstrate any damages from the program. Except maybe terrorists.

>

Nonsense. There is no legal doctrine and no law which absolves the press of culpability of anything, nor should there be. The press, in the aggregate, is simply a collection of for-profit enterprises. Even the nonprofits, like NPR, hire for profit freelancers.

The existence of libel laws alone puts paid to your argument that the press is absolved of a damn thing. If you trash someone's reputation in print, you may be held liable for damages. There are certain differences in the standard of proof required to demonstrate libel, but these exceptions attach to the VICTIM of libel, not to the newspaper.

For example, if a regular joe sees his name in the paper, and it tarnishes his reputation, all he has to do is show damages, to win the claim. That's it.

The newspaper, then can only rebut by PROVING that the information is true. Truth is an absolute defense, but the burden of proof in rebuttal is on the newspaper, not on the plaintiff.

If the subject of the story is a public figure, though, the burden of proof shifts somewhat - the victim must not only demonstrate that he or she was damaged, but that the newspaper acted out of "actual malice." I.e., a deliberate intent.

If this can be demonstrated, a claim can be successful. The newspaper can then try to rebut the claim by demonstrating its truth, but that is no different than in the first instance.

Whether the newspaper was executing its responsibilities to the public is a matter to bring before juries, but there is nothing in the law which absolves a newspaper from civil liability for actuall causing damage to individual private citizens. They are exactly like every other profit making entity in this regard. As it should be.

Newspapers are not above the law.

The very fact that people here can post to the effect that newspapers are "absolved" of anything under the law by the very fact that they are newspapers is kind of disturbing in itself.

Is there really that much Kool-aid being drunk?

Jason

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 2, 2006 1:22 AM | Permalink

What bothers me the most is that Keller accepted the assurances of the White House that everything they were doing was legal.

According to Keller, one gets the impression that the story was finally published because the Times found sources inside the administration who did question the legality of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. It was not the "national security" issue that stopped Keller from publishing, but merely the fact that the program was legal.

But the story was not about the existence of dissension within the administration about the legality of warrantless wiretaps; the story was the warrantless wiretaps. The Times would have had no difficulty whatsoever finding experts on Constitutional and statutory (FISA) law that were capable of raising serious questions about the program --- and one gets the impression that Risen had those experts lined up.

Given that, the explanation "the President told us everything was legal, and we published when we got anonymous sources in the administration that told us that there was internal dissention" really doesn't add up.

Personally, I think that Risen let Keller know that his book was coming out, and that he planned on creating a buzz about the book by giving portions of the galley proofs to other media outlets. This forced Keller's hand -- but he made sure that Risen was "punished" for his act of insubordination by treating it as a "Times" scoop, rather than as a "Risen book" scoop.

As for Calame, gosh its nice that he mentions that Pinch and Keller won't answer his questions --- but lets face it, a "public editor" that can't get answers to questions of importance to the public really has no function other than window dressing. Calame really has two choices --- resign, or be a mannequin. So far, it looks to me like he's chosen the latter course.

Posted by: ami at January 1, 2006 5:05 AM | Permalink

I with ami on this. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. I think this was a messy story because the administration was leaning on the Times to stay quiet, and the Times was conflicted about it. And then when Risen told them it was a big part of the book splash, they decided to publish. I wonder what would have happened if Risen hadn't told them. How did Keller discover the contents of Risen's book? I can't remember if I read about that or not.

I think Calame should not resign. No, no. His presence can prove the lack of transparency. He's in a tough spot, and doing a good job of it. I also think he should force Keller's hand: how many questions can Barney ask before Keller fires him?

BTW, Jay, this blog may have great comments, but you emcee the events and then spur on the discussion. Let's have more in 2006.

Posted by: JennyD at January 1, 2006 9:34 AM | Permalink

Dyspeptic Loveladyland wrote:

The breaking of the story of the NSA listening to my phone calls and yours -- or the story of secret CIA interrogation chambers in Eastern Europe -- may yet prove to the the Pentagon Papers of our times.

Yep, no hoping for a palace coup there, eh Michael Powell? I guess the old pass receiver extraordinaire took a few hits off Navasky's bong.

Posted by: Walter Duranty in the House at January 1, 2006 10:11 AM | Permalink

It is incredible how self-destructive this shrinking industry has become while in the throws of re-invention. Here are some comments on the effect on the entire industry, http://canticleforleibowitz.blogspot.com/2005/12/in-midst-of-great-depression.html
It is an open game whether or not we'll see massive consolidation as a result of the troubles. Even, especially, the largest may be at risk.

Posted by: Bob Leibowitz at January 1, 2006 10:48 AM | Permalink

As a layperson, I'm inclined to give the Times the benefit of the doubt, as Calame suggests, that the timing of the story could have put the original sources in danger. (And I put NOTHING past this Administration. There apparently is NO end to their assertion that Bush can do whatever he wants.)

I am far more interested in exploring the scope of the illegal wholesale spying than the timing of the story. I'd hate to see everyone get focused on the navel yet again. For example, what about Richardson's suspicions that the NSA illegally wiretapped his conversations with Powell about North Korea and gave the transcripts to Bolton? Are they illegally spying on harmless pro-peace groups?

I'm more inclined to congratulate the Times for publishing the story, regardless of circumstances. It can't be an easy time for them.

Posted by: Phredd at January 1, 2006 12:16 PM | Permalink

I think we can all agree that the story itself and the revelations in it are more important than the transparency and timing questions. (Does anyone disagree?) Consider the revelation that on Dec. 6 Bush called Sulzberger and Keller to the White House to pressure them not to run the story. That came out in the reporting other news organizations did about the Times. The Times did not report it. Focusing on the navel? Insignifcant detail?

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 1, 2006 12:56 PM | Permalink

"I am far more interested in exploring the scope of the illegal wholesale spying than the timing of the story."

That's fine, but just keep in mind that the focus of this blog is on the press and how it does its job. It's not a policy discussion forum on government policy. Those issues are discussed elsewhere in great detail. Jay is trying to examine how the press works and doesn't work.

Posted by: kcom at January 1, 2006 1:26 PM | Permalink

I don't know, Jay, the 'spying' is petering out into a non-story: Bush Died, Electrons Died. Today anyway, all the unusual actions and rationales or lack of them by the NYT, a powerful institution thick in the business of national security, is looking more and more like a bigger story. I see gloves flying everywhere: Bush v Pinch, Byron v Bill. There are earth-shaking events in the offing, and it ain't Bush gittin' bad guys by being alert.
================================

Posted by: kim at January 1, 2006 1:28 PM | Permalink

I am far more interested in exploring the scope of the illegal wholesale spying than the timing of the story. I'd hate to see everyone get focused on the navel yet again.

that is an admirable and understandable sentiment. However, one aspect of the blogosphere is its "niche-iness" --- The niche of Pressthink is to explore issues relating to journalism -- and that is why we are focussing on the "process" and "transparency" issues here.

Indeed, this blog is at its best when the discussion ignores the actual issue at hand, because discussion of the issue results in one of the best comments section in the blogosphere degenerating into political posturing from the rabble (myself included, btw.)

In other words, there are lots of blogs out there obsessing about the wiretaps themselves... and I strongly urge you to participate in those discussions in those fora, rather than here.

Posted by: ami at January 1, 2006 1:32 PM | Permalink

Yeah, I love this site for the stories behind the stories--the critical take on the process of journalism. Because the field is going through some interesting shifts, this kind of story is all the more interesting. In addition, the angle of relationships between government and the press is also interesting.

For example, the reported instance of the Bush Administration pressuring the NYT to hold the story--what does pressuring mean in this instance? What is the context? Pressuring does not necessarily infer a negative against freedom of the press, and could equally be construed as "attempting to convince" in the appropriate context, even though both sides have a specific agenda in this case, interpreted differently depending on one's bias. These gray areas are interesting.

Posted by: Shawn in Tokyo at January 1, 2006 1:57 PM | Permalink

It's difficult to argue that the Times, its readers and journalism generally wouldn't be far better off with greater transparency in this (and most) matters. Yes, Keller et al have stumbled badly in how and what was disclosed.

But there are a couple of real-world considerations that critics on the sidelines ought to ponder.

1. Why does you simply assume the Times had a fully publishable story in hand at the time the WH intervened to lobby against it? Complex, high-stakes investigations demand painstaking, rigorous attention. I'd be shocked if the WH wasn't able at least to introduce doubts that needed to be rechecked. Your leakers give you one version; you confront authorities; they supply another batch of information and interpretation that contradicts your sources; you go back and doublecheck, do it again and then triple, then quadruple check. This is true more often than not in the toughest investigations.
I read Keller's admittedly obtuse explanation as being that after they talked to the WH, they needed to keep reporting to make sure the story held up and overcame objections. That's the simplest, most believable answer. Occam's Razor suggests we ought to believe it until somebody demonstrates something to the contrary.

2. Being under investigation and facing subpoenas really does require a different level of public comment than that faced by, say, a tenured professor or an unimpeded bystander or even a fellow traveler. Honestly.

3. Why not tell us they talked to the WH? Could it have been an off-the-record conversation?

Posted by: Howard at January 1, 2006 1:57 PM | Permalink

it seems to me that other held stories may influence the Times response to the public editor.

Waht's the backstory on the Iran invasion reported in Der Spiegel, for instance?

Why would you think the Times has been completely forthcoming in the handling of the Plame exposures?

Posted by: bippy at January 1, 2006 2:05 PM | Permalink

Apply Occam's Razor to the stonewall, and you reveal lawyer's advice. I suspect they are not talking because they shouldn't, not because they won't. They are in a fight.
==================================

Posted by: kim at January 1, 2006 2:21 PM | Permalink

Edward Wasserman of Miami Herald: "One of the more durable fallacies of ethical thought in journalism is the notion that doing right means holding back, that wrong is averted by leaving things out, reporting less or reporting nothing. When in doubt, kill the quote, hold the story - that's the ethical choice. But silence isn't innocent. It has consequences. In this case, it protected those within the government who believe that the law is a nuisance, that they don't have to play by the rules, by any rules, even their own."

The Times decided to break the story only because it was going to become a fait accompli anyway through the publication of the book. Now that events took an unexpected turn, they are trying to make the best of a bad situation (of their own making) by hiding behind an all-too-familiar ruse - confidential sourcing.

That said, this has to be a more common situation that we (excluding a few insiders on this board!) realize. One has to wonder how many such situations the Washington Post was in given that Mr. Woodward was an editor of the paper but often chose to break many stories in his books instead of the newspaper. Inevitably, this would have led to instances where the paper (at least Mr. Woodward) knew stuff that was important to the public (and was perishable) but held off publication till the book was ready.

Posted by: village idiot at January 1, 2006 2:37 PM | Permalink

That’s kind of tough to do, because then you are not having an honest discussion here on the process. The problem is that the original articles and most commentary on them assume that the actions were illegal. That is simply not yet a proven. Personally I don’t believe they were.

But if this discussion is based around illegal intelligence gathering, it comes out much different than if we all assume the actions were perfectly legal.

If they are legal, and harm has been done due to the release of this information, then I for one believe that the NYT should be prosecuted as well as the leakers.

Jay says:

“The New York Times deserves thanks and admiration for the service it has done the nation,” Rutten wrote, and I strongly agree with that.

I strongly disagree with that. I strongly think that the Times has done great harm to our country by running the story. Doing so after specific requests from the WH not to is the height of irresponsibility. I think they should be prosecuted.

So transparency has a much different meaning to me. If you assume illegality, you get questions like those here. If you assume the actions are legal but the release of the information is illegal, then you want something different out of transparency. I want Calame to walk me through the process of how a once great paper decided to publish classified information useful to our enemies in a time of war. Think a public editor is up to that job? Hopefully, the trial transcripts won’t be sealed – I’ll get the story there.

Posted by: OCSteve at January 1, 2006 3:07 PM | Permalink

I think we saw it pretty clearly with the Judith Miller affair, and we see it clearly here - the New York Times has become so institutionally hamstrung that it cannot be transparent. It's institutionally incapable of doing so. It's become too big, too unwieldy, and its institutional interests preclude actual reporting.

Like a huge 100-billion + mutual fund which tries to invest in microcaps, only to find the very fact that it's investing in microcaps or selling microcaps to be moving the markets against its own interests, the Times is finding it difficult to report on some matters without finding that it has, itself, become part of the story.

And once it has become part of the story, it becomes almost impossible for the NY Times as an institution, to cover the story accurately. Times staffers will not out Times staffers.

Compounding this difficulty is the fact that the New York Times, like many coastal media sources, and like Manhattan itself, become an echo-chamber of Northeeaster liberal orthodoxy.

Because there is almost no intellectual diversity in its ranks - studies showing that liberals outnumber conservatives in the newspaper world by 4 or 5 to 1 are legion - it becomes even more difficult to honestly and accurately report on anything, because there is no internal system of checks and balances on underlying assumptions.

Times staffers live and work in a liberal fever swamp, and then go out and drink in cafes and bars and hang out in parks that themselves have become liberal fever swamps, and are never seriously exposed to other modalities of thinking.

Maybe they have one or two moderates in the newsroom whom everyone else THINKS is a conservative.

I've contacted the Times, and their editors on several occasions when they've absolutely blown coverage on Iraq or military affairs, asking how many of their newsroom staffers are veterans.

I've never received an answer. Undoubtedly, it's very few, or they wouldn't make the kinds of mistakes they routinely make. But it does speak to newsroom diversity - an ideal for which they'll go to the mat, as long as its LIBERAL diversity.

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 1, 2006 3:32 PM | Permalink

"Time-Delayed Journalism

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

"The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation. The statesman collects his information secretly and by secret means; he keeps back even the current intelligence of the day with ludicrous precautions The Press lives by disclosures For us, with whom publicity and truth are the air and light of existence, there can be no greater disgrace than to recoil from the frank and accurate disclosure of facts as they are. We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences--to lend no convenient shelter to acts of injustice or oppression, but to consign them at once to the judgement of the world."

Robert Lowe, editorial, London Times, 1851.

"Lowe's magnificent editorial was written in response to the claim of a government minister that if the press hoped to share the influence of statesmen it "must also share in the responsibilities of statesmen". It's a long, sad decline from what Lowe wrote in 1851 to the disclosure by the New York Times on Friday that it sat for over a year on a story revealing that the Bush administration had sanctioned a program of secret, illegal spying on US citizens here in the Homeland, by the National Security Agency."

How come Jay missed this in his compendium? It is available here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12172005.html

Posted by: village idiot at January 1, 2006 3:39 PM | Permalink

What's interesting to me is how this is playing politically. Normally, the Democrat leadership, and other Dems, would be cheering the Times on, hoping this leak would damage Bush.

But no. Look at what elected Democrats are saying about this leak. Jay Rockefeller says that while he had misgivings about the program, he still wants to know the identity of the leaker. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee is denoucing the leak as hurting national security (!), and when hyper-partisans like Chas. Schumer say "There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait 'til the investigation occurs to decide what happened", well you know this ain't your daddy's Plame investigation. Since this program was so secret, the pool of possible suspects is limited, and the fact that the DoJ has already started a criminal investigation indicates that they are fairly certain that someone broke the law. My guess is that someone is going to jail and it ain't gonna be Karl Rove.

But that brings up another interesting question. Suppose the leaker is found to have been politically motivated (rather than a "whistleblower") in an attempt to undermine Bush and change policy, and in the process, undermined national security? In other words, suppose the Times is wrong that this is only about civil liberties, when it may have national security implications? What happens to the Times if it is a co-conspirator in a criminal act? Do they just get to shrug, say "oh, well" and move on? What is the resposibility of the press in a situation like this? Anything, or nothing?

Posted by: steffen at January 1, 2006 3:46 PM | Permalink

First, steffen, it's not one leaker; survey the article, and it appears to be closer to a dozen different and distinct leakers.
(Though it's certainly true that, "[s]ince this program was so secret, the pool of possible suspects is limited.")
As for the Times, why are you supposing that it thinks "that this is only about civil liberties, when it may have national security implications?"
Those very national security implications are what Keller cryptically cites as his reason for holding the story for a year and for withholding parts of it even when he did finally publish --actions for which he is now taking plenty of heat, almost as much heat as he's taking for publishing at all.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 4:14 PM | Permalink

My compliments on the strawman you've constructed Steve, but show me one article by either WaPo or NYTimes concerning this leak that didn't reinforce the press master narrative of "Imperial President", "unchecked power", Nixon=Bush, civil liberties uber alles in the first few paragraphs.

But you didn't answer my question: if the NYTimes is a co-conspirator in a crime, what are the consequences, if any?

Posted by: steffen at January 1, 2006 4:29 PM | Permalink

I think the public has an interest in prosecuting leakers, but no particular interest in prosecuting reporters who report what the leakers tell them.

There's a difference, I think, between a journalist reporting information, even if that information is classified, and someone with a security clearance, in the employ of the people, who has been specifically entrusted to safeguard classified information, and who violates that trust by leaking it - whatever the motive.

Now, the Times, of course, and the reporter and the publishers of his book, are profiting from the release of this information. And so while I'd be reluctant to prosecute a reporter except the most egregious cases, if there is, indeed, a terrorist attack, and it can be demonstrated that the disclosure of the NSA program hampered efforts to prevent it, and people are killed and injured as a result, and property is destroyed as a result of the Times' irresponsibility, then I would not be opposed to some substantial civil liability to the estates and families of the victims.

The possibility of civil liability in the event of a terrorist attack might go a long way to aligning the interests of the republic and the New York Times itself, and help spark a more responsible risk/reward analysis on the part of the Times and other institutions like it.

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 1, 2006 4:57 PM | Permalink

From a previous thread...

I'm glad I had my showdown with the bias warriors in the summer. There's been a lot less repetitive drilling since then, and some addition by subtraction as a few of the more chronic offenders left.

They're baaaaack.....

Posted by: ami at January 1, 2006 5:04 PM | Permalink

It's hard to pick my favorite post from 2005 but The Downing Street Memo and the Court of Appeal in News Judgment was the one I linked to the most and From Meet the Press to Be the Press is the one I've emailed to the most people.

happy new year to all the regulars

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at January 1, 2006 5:17 PM | Permalink

Apparently the FISA judges have refused or modified a few of the Administration's requests. If a preventable terrorist act occurs in the future as result of these actions, would you believe that the FISA court is liable, and should be prosecuted?

There are some obvious differences between the Times' publishing of the story, and above analogy, but I think the logic holds; both are key institutions of democratic governance and are absolved of any culpability as long as their actions are consistent with their respective missions under a democratic system.

Posted by: village idiot at January 1, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink

That's a pretty sturdy strawman if he was able to convince the Times to hold off publication for more than a year, steffan.
But I can take no credit for his construction; as I understand the chain of events, that singular manufacture took place in the Oval Office.
As for your legal question, you'll have to take that to a lawyer -- but, as we all know, there are lawyers (the Powerline version) and then there are lawyers (the ACLU version) so I fear the answer you will get will reflect the respondent's politics more than his or her legal acumen.
As somone who ran the other direction anytime he was dragged near a law school, my own guess is that something like Jason's breakdown might take place. But that's pure supposition on my part.
We might find out soon, though. It depends on whether the feds make any headway within that small school of likely suspects -- and on how the attorney general of the moment decides to proceed from there.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 5:56 PM | Permalink

Jason --
I too don't know what percentage of Times folk are veterans. But I do know what Calame's experience was; he served for four years as a naval officer on a vessel off the shores of Vietnam.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 6:01 PM | Permalink

Why do you consider it to be an important criteria for a newsroom to have veterans? If anything, your question would seem to have much greater relevance if posed of the elected/appointed officials of the executive branch, in as much as decisions of war and peace are made there.

Posted by: village idiot at January 1, 2006 6:19 PM | Permalink

Max Weber would have loved the New York Times, and all the shenanigans. This is from a paper about his writings on government "secret-keeping," both its use and goals.

"Weber identified such bureaucratic action as official secret-keeping, and stated that it is often an essential mechanism for building and maintaining bureaucratic power. It both enhances the expertise of the bureaucrat by preventing others from knowing what he knows, and it deflects criticism from outside interests by never providing enough information for such criticism to gain legitimacy:
"Every bureaucracy seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration always tends to be an administration of ‘secret sessions’: in so far as it can, it hides its knowledge and action from criticism. . . . The tendency toward secrecy in certain administrative fields follows their material nature: everywhere that the power interests of the domination structure toward the outside are at stake, whether it is an economic competitor or a private enterprise, or a foreign, potentially hostile polity, we find secrecy."

In other words, a large institution keep secrets, in an official capacity, as a way to reinforce its power and expertise. The less its "clients" know about the work it does, the less able the clients are to criticize, and the more dependent clients are on the products of the institution.

Weber was writing in the 1920s about the rise of bureaucracy in Progressive Era governments. But I think there's a kernel here that sounds like the Times.....

Posted by: JennyD at January 1, 2006 6:32 PM | Permalink

It does sound like the Times, Jenny.
It also sounds like the White House.
And like every government agency ever invented.
And like every large university in the land.
And like all but the smallest of corporations.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, you can't throw an egg out of any window in the land without hitting a bureaucrat harboring a secret dear to his heart.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 6:45 PM | Permalink

Just to be clear here. I have not argued that the NSA is doing something illegal, nor have I argued that Keller was wrong to hold the story for a year. I have said I don't know enough to make that determination. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Times story would help Al Queda, or harm national security; and President Bush's assertion that it would bring harm is not, to my mind, convincing evidence.

Jenny, ami and Ron-- thanks for your comments on PressThink.

Andrew Sullivan thinks Calame is being too tough; the only thing Keller did wrong is not disclose the Risen book.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 1, 2006 7:22 PM | Permalink

My understanding would be that you don't know if leaking NSA was a crime until you know if the NSA program itself was a crime. If it is a crime, then leaking it is whistleblowing.

I entirely don't discount the national security argument.

But I do wonder that the Times did not consider that it might be BS.

The Bush Administration has alrady argued that sending Republicans to Washington is in the best interest of "national security" (see: central argument 2002; 2004).

Let's not forget, too, that their ally the presumed innocent Tom DeLay used the national security apparatus to hunt down Texas Democrats in pursuit of his (and Rove's) corruptly-funded voter-proof "Permanent Republican Majority".

We also know that the UN was bugged in the runup to the Iraq invasion.

You would have to be fairly naive to not suspect that this program was being used against domestic dissidents -- perhaps even against journalists.

Posted by: Richard B. Simon at January 1, 2006 8:37 PM | Permalink

Malkin is right, Calame should tell us what his questions were/are. And Keller's insistence on not revealing when the paper had the story before or after last year's election is nonsense: at the least, he could tell us when the paper agreed not to publish the story. That wouldn't compromise any sources, since the White House were obviously aware at that point that the program had sprung leaks.

It's a great story, and now that the floodgates have been opened by the Times, we're learning something new about it pretty much daily.

I'd go with the Andrew Heyward post as perhaps the most revealing of the year. "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do
you, Mr. Jones?" Or how to fix it. And I'm still annoyed that no one responded to my endless pleas for some explanation of how Heyward's epiphanies would translate into actual changes in the reporting and presentation of news, although the excursion into Derridaworld was fun.

And while we're not on the subject, I'd like to nominate Knight Ridder's Washington bureau and international desk and the Toledo Blade as joint winners of the institutional press stars of the year. The Times could learn from both.

Posted by: weldon berger at January 1, 2006 8:42 PM | Permalink

Steve, I agree. Every institution suffers from to some extent from the failings of a bureaucracies...

BUT....

Institutions like the Times have staked their reputations on the claim that they DON'T keep secrets. In fact, they are secret-telling institutions, and they do so for the public good. See this comment above quoting a passage written in 1851. I would venture that journalists would agree with these words, even though the most prestigious newspaper in the nation seems to be behaving like a government bureaucracy rather than a news organization.

It's because big news organizations have become indistinguishable from the institutions they cover. Power, money, prestige, celebrity, all of these now flow to bigfoot journalists and their employers. Maybe this was always so, but because of various changes in the way people communicate, it's now easier to see, discuss, and criticize.

Steve, I agree that bureaucracies are similar. But I am irritated that journalism institutions pretend they are not bureaucracies and are somehow immune from the ills of bureaucracies.

Posted by: JennyD at January 1, 2006 8:46 PM | Permalink

Also, I concur with weldon's nomination of the Toledo Blade. A terrific paper, doing an amazing job of reporting stories, far away from the glamour of NYC and DC.

Posted by: JennyD at January 1, 2006 8:51 PM | Permalink

Does Sullivan (or Shafer) honestly believe the Times should withhold from its readers what Keller dismissively refers to as "the back story" -- the fact that its editor and its publisher were summoned to the White House by a president seeking to implement his own version of prior restraint ?
If past performance is any indication, that incident is going to go into history books before news of it gets into the New York Times.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 8:51 PM | Permalink

Jenny, we're in agreement. The Times is nothing if not a big, cumbersome bureaucracy tied up in its own red tape and too often stumbling over its own feet.
That's part of Keller's headache; he's running a newsroom of 1,200 souls organized into calcified bureacratic fiefdoms often at odds with each other -- as opposed to, say, a sleek, streamlined operation of, say, 180 reporters and 20 editors, which would be a much more nimble set-up for getting off the mark fast.
But, he, like the rest of us, chose his own poison. All he can do is try to make the best of it.

Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 1, 2006 9:02 PM | Permalink

I'm as moonbat as they come, but I'd like to suggest a more realistic alternative explanation.

The program did not target anyone but people who were suspected of being "linked" to people who were "linked" to terrorists -- including people who wouldn't even know they were "linked" to people who had "links".

That was part of the problem, but one that lots of folks were willing to overlook.

The real problem cropped up when someone requested information from NSA intercepts for "foreign policy" reasons. We spy all the time on foreigners, not becaue they are terrorists, but just because its in our national interest to know what foreign powers are doing.

...and some of the intercepts that were provided to the person requesting them were from this special program -- which was ONLY supposed to be used in the "war on terror".

Hypothetical -- John Bolton asks for all intercepts of conversations of El Baradei. Baradei had dinner at the home of an American citizen who was subjected to the "special" warrentless wiretaps program. Baradei made a phone call from that person's house -- and the transcript of that phone call made its way to Bolton.

This is the kind of thing that would have made those who were skeptical of the program, but went along with it anyway, put their foot down.

Its just speculation, but before we get too paranoid, lets assume that people are acting with the best intentions (and we can do so even if we think that what they are doing is grossly illegal).

Posted by: ami at January 1, 2006 9:51 PM | Permalink

apropos of nothing...but I think Jane Hamsher has hit on something about blogs and the press that bears repeating (and possibly its own post in Pressthink...hint, hint :) )

I can only speak about my own experience, as someone who regularly speak with numerous journalists who cover the CIA leak case for the purpose of getting a better understanding of what's going on. And these are remarkably smart people, because I'm not going to waste my time talking to the dumb ones. But their job is to stay on the phone all day and cultivate sources, and their memories probably don't extend a whole lot further than the article they wrote yesterday.
They do not spend the hours and days sifting through raw data now available to average people on the internet. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. That is not what they do. If you want to know some obscure detail about something Judith Miller did or said in June of 2003 you call emptywheel. If you need to know about journalists named in the subpoenas sent to the White House in January 2003 you email Jeralyn. If you expect that kind of depth of knowledge about details from the people whose job it is to dig up new dirt in this case, they don't have it. They don't have the time.

In this light bloggers serve the function of analysts. Or re-analyzers, more aptly, who attempt to contextualize as they sort through available data and look for patterns, inconsistencies and greater truths. For my money if I was trying to marry a blog with a newsroom that's where I'd start -- I'm constantly amazed that with all the access to information now available the big news bureaus don't have a deeper pool of researchers to be the adjunct memories of people who spend their time in the development of external news sources.

or, shorter Jane Hamsher... monomania isn't always a bad thing...

Posted by: ami at January 1, 2006 11:59 PM | Permalink

Jay Rosen: I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the Times story would help Al Queda, or harm national security; and President Bush's assertion that it would bring harm is not, to my mind, convincing evidence.

Jason Van Steenwyk: Was National Security compromised? I don't think serious observers will doubt that it was.

Jay -- What evidence would you require to be convinced? And, assuming that there is such damage to National Security, how could the President provide evidence to you without further damaging security? Should he come on television and say, "I want to assure Jay Rosen at NYU that we have been monitoring Abdul so-and-so in Pakistan and he has been calling Hassan so-and-so in New York about plans against the NYC subway, so you should be careful over there, Professor! Now, is it OK with you if I kindly ask Bill Keller to stop helping Al Qaeda? Oh, and, make sure it's OK with Steve Lovelady, too. His judgement is at least as valuable as the 60 million Americans who voted for me to serve as Commander in Chief."

Your position is not only unserious and potentially suicidal, it is actually anti-democratic.

Posted by: Rx for BDS at January 2, 2006 2:16 AM | Permalink

ami, he didn't tell you about the showdown with bias warriors he had over on JOM a week or so ago. Milro et al is now out. What about it?
=============================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 4:19 AM | Permalink

Hey Jay, it's monomaniacal, purblind, and parochial to believe that bloggers only blog about what journalists have written. That is a shocking comment.
====================================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 4:32 AM | Permalink

From Brian Calame's article:

With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source.

Ironically, this is almost precisely the argument that the Adminstration itself is making as to how publication of the NSA article ultimately endangers National Security.

Posted by: JM Hanes at January 2, 2006 7:36 AM | Permalink

ami, he didn't tell you about the showdown with bias warriors he had over on JOM a week or so ago. Milro et al is now out. What about it?

Kim, watching Jay take on the bias warriors reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the Black Knight -- you know, the one where Arthur cuts off the limbs of the Knight defending the bridge in succession, but the Black Knight won't give up? It ends with this bit of dialogue...

BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]

BLACK KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.

ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.

BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Posted by: ami at January 2, 2006 8:55 AM | Permalink

Go check it out, ami, it's the 'How long is a year' post at JustOneMinute. He was outnumbered but put up a fight until someone gave him a gracious way out by calling him a troll. The post before that one blogged about Groseclose and Milyo despite the fact that journalists aren't falling over themselves to write about it.
===================================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 10:03 AM | Permalink

Not even Monty Python can express the absurdity of "taking on" the bias warriors. Anyway that war was lost long ago. Bias is the victorious category everywhere.

Who in blazes said newspapers were above the law? The suggestion is absurd. Anyway, they ain't. Libel law and laws against fraud, as well as labor law where there are unions constrain them mightily. But legally they don't have to do what George W. Bush says.

Experience teaches me it is unproductive in the extreme to respond to comments like:

Was National Security compromised? I don't think serious observers will doubt that it was.

or:

which place debate off limits.

But I will say that the difference may be simpler: I don't trust a thing George Bush or his VP say, and would never take their word for anything. You would. That's just a version of the red blue divide and it has no news or discussion value whatsoever.

I didn't say bloggers only blog about what journalists have written, either. I said: most bloggers "will happily admit that without the press they would be lost-- out of business, so to speak."

Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 2, 2006 10:13 AM | Permalink

Jason:

I have argued in a previous post that the press should be held liable for injury, at least in a civil manner. That said, how do you square this with the Wen Ho Lee case:

The damage is there for everybody to see (It was reported that the judge actually apologized to Mr. Lee). The lack of truth in the Times' accusations is clearly established in the court proceedings and by the verdict. Yet, Mr. Lee's civil case appears to be mired.

Second, you cannot bring a successful suit against a government agent, such as a cop, soldier, or judge, for legal actions taken in the course of carrying out his or her duties.

Without getting into the 'sovereign immunity' principle (I believe there are several exceptions to this and suits are routinely allowed to go forward against the sovereign) that you probably are referring to, the operative word in your above sentence appears to be 'legal actions'. Do you disagree that the law is now settled (Pentagon Papers) that Newspapers are free to legally publish whatever they discover during the course of their duties? Do you disagree that the 'national security' criteria (as applied to this issue by the Times) are largely a form of self-regulation. Do you see a special role for the press in a democracy and the necessity for some form of immunity to make this role effective? If you do, what is your prescription for resolving the tension between that special role and the for-profit motive?

Posted by: village idiot at January 2, 2006 10:38 AM | Permalink

Jay sez: "I don't trust a thing George Bush or his VP say."

The flip side is that some us don't trust a thing the NYTimes or press say. Why ask why? A hint is contained in the Seelye article which quotes Jamie McIntyre as saying "...so many people (non-journalists)are trying to shape things into their own reality." Then there was this little gem: "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

I suppose if the entire country was made up of east coast liberal elites and proles, McIntyre's model would just be hunkey-dorey. Just as we need to be wary of politicians (hey, Jay, did you "trust a thing" Clinton & Gore said?) we need to be wary of press attempts to make our reality conform with theirs, especially since the press never pays a price for being wrong (which they consistently are). This is the value of blogs---we finally have a venue to fact check the press and we can take back our "reality" from the elites.

I always thought a quote from Walter Cronkite was telling. When asked what he missed most about not doing the evening news, Walter said "setting the agenda" is what he missed most. A handful of unelected liberal elites setting the agenda for the entire country! Thank god those days are over and are never coming back.

Posted by: steffen at January 2, 2006 10:55 AM | Permalink

The post before that one blogged about Groseclose and Milyo despite the fact that journalists aren't falling over themselves to write about it.

the fact that the wingnuts take the Groseclose/Milyo study seriously is all you need to know about how the wingnuts are incapable of logical thought.

Here's a clue....in the ranking how "liberal" (closer to 100) or "conservative" (closer to 0) an organization is, the Rand Corporation (60.4) is considered more "liberal" than "Amnesty International" (57.4)--- and the ACLU is actually slight right of center (49.8).

I believe that this study can best be described by a single acronym --- GIGO

Posted by: ami at January 2, 2006 11:31 AM | Permalink

Go look at G&M before you GIGO it. Your comment is uninformed. Despite it not fitting your intuitions the conclusions are intuitively correct and the method is sound. Let's here some real criticism.
===============================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 11:36 AM | Permalink

Oh, by the way, if you are able to keep it civil, we can have a discussion. Alternately, I will assume that you need to vent, and will refrain from disturbing your soliloquy:)

Posted by: village idiot at January 2, 2006 11:37 AM | Permalink

I quote you, Jay. " Don't these bloggers realize that without journalists reporting the news there would be nothin to blog about?" That's an astounding commentary on navel-gazing.
================================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 11:42 AM | Permalink

Go look at G&M before you GIGO it.

where do you think I discovered that G/M designated Rand as considerably more liberal than the ACLU?

G/M's logic is ridiculous. The assumption is that an organization's ideological bias can be determined by the ideological ranking of Congresscritters who cite that organization (the Garbage going in), then base their judgement of media "bias" on the supposed ideological bias of the organizations (the Garbage coming out).

Posted by: ami at January 2, 2006 11:58 AM | Permalink

You can do with Groseclose and Milyo, ami, what many recommend, "Watch their pages". Or you can read about it in JOM about a week and a half ago in a post with those names.

Now, I'll shuddup about G&M if you like. I came here in response to the bait about which is a bigger story, Bush's actions or the Times' actions. Dubya, "Thank God the Captain's awake." The Gray Lady, "Who elected them to run the country?"

Cha cha cha cha chat.
Ta ta ta ta tat.
It is nice to know,
Just where you are at.
=================================

Posted by: kim at January 2, 2006 12:03 PM | Permalink

Kim, a hint:

The sentence that has you in a twist, " Don't these bloggers realize that without journalists reporting the news there would be nothin to blog about?" is Jay's reflection on what 'professional journalists' think. They are not Jay's words.

Reading for comprehension can be a fun thing.

Now a question for all: Is the concern expressed here about journalists setting the agenda - assuming they really do set any agenda - is the concern over the agenda-setting or because journalists are perceived to be liberal - whatever that means?

If the concern is over setting the agenda, than journalism has done a pretty crappy job. And if it's over the political ideology, then you're saying only conservatives should set the agenda. Right?

Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 2, 2006 12:04 PM | Permalink