NYT Published Wiretap Story Because of a Reporter's New Book

THE NATION
Critics Question Timing of Surveillance Story
The New York Times, which knew about the secret wiretaps for more than a year, published because of a reporter's new book, sources say.

By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer


The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussions.


The Times report has created a furor in Washington, with politicians in both parties and civil libertarians saying that President Bush was wrong to authorize the surveillance by the National Security Agency without permission from a special court.


The initial Times statements did not say that the paper's internal debate began before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election — in which Iraq and national security questions loomed large — or make any reference to Risen's book, due out Jan. 16.

But two journalists, who declined to be identified, said that editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush's November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media20dec20,0,7619720.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=113508617747970852

After all the good fights that have been waged on behalf of a free press in this country, look at what these motherfuckers have done.

I am so sad, so appalled, words fail me.

The Times, in my opinion, are accessories to this crime. :puke: No wonder why they ****LOVE**** Judith Miller.

Last i heard it was almost a foregone conclusion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

She 'quit' and has won a golden parachute from the NYT.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477026

Miller Quits 'Times,' Says She Already Has Other Offers
NEW YORK Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller said Wednesday, hours after leaving the paper, that she had already received several offers "of all kinds" for employment, but would not specify what they were, according to an article in the Times.

Miller also told her old paper that she was "very satisfied" with the severance agreement and described herself as a "free woman," no longer bound to what she called the "convent of The New York Times, a convent with its own theology and its own catechism."

they perhaps would have a moral imperative to at least be truthful with their readers, wouldn't they?

>"convent of The New York Times, a convent with its own theology and its own catechism."<

I'm sorry, but this is so offensive on so many levels, I can't even imagine.

Judy Miller needs to get over herself.

Julie
edited to fix a truly heinous use of a comma :blush:

What if NYT had published it before the elections, the public had become even more convinced that the King protects them and voted him in by a big margin (look what happened even on the Bin Laden tape!) and then Bush brushed away the story saying the public had given him the mandate to do as he pleases?

The situation is much tougher for him to weasel out of now, and since his credibility with even the sheeple being at a low ebb, I am not sure he can escape impeachment, even before the '06 elections.

Right-of-center lawyers are out there saying Bush broke the law. How does Congress ignore that?

info during an election season. They are suppose to be a newspaper: "All the News That's Fit to Print." They should not be holding off stories because they may "damage" the image of the President before an election. Their charge is to inform the public of all things newsworthy and the possibility of a president abusing his power (breaking the law) by spying on American citizens is rather newsworthy. This country is so politically charged that we forget that it is not a newspaper's role to be the guardians of political message, it is to be the fourth estate and the purveyors of the truth.

I agree that bu$h's credibility has vanished for most Americans, and this may be politically advantageous right now, but that is not the point. The Times aided the administration by snuffing this story until now, IMHO. And now it appears that they only released this story because of an upcoming book that it due out in 2006.

I agree that he may not be able to weasel out of this now, but it has been the water carriers in the press that have allowed bu$h's propaganda to influence the American psyche for the past 5 years.


On edit-Geez-I've been in too many threads today. I put the link of this thread in the body of my post. :silly: I removed the link. :silly:

all the time, though. It is not entirely clear to me that an issue as sensitive as this has a clear cut answer.

Forget the thugs currently in office, but what if there was an admin that was truly fighting the WOT sincerely and the publication of this at any time truly could have disrupted such activity -- what would your answer then be? I am fairly conflicted about the issue -- I am fairly absolutist about the job of the press ("print all that you know") in most cases; however, I do think there is a legitimate case to be made for caution in some instances such as national security, very serious crimes and war.



The tragedy (for the country and the world) of the Bush/GOP regime is that they have made such a mockery of every legitimate effort of a government, that it is scary to contemplate the status of all the important institutions of democracy at the end of this mess. Their shortsighted exploitation of everything good and noble about a democratic system of governance and their endless cynical manipulation of every (un)available lever is going to take a very long time to correct.

No administration ever needs to do what bush has done. He ignored the Constitution, he ignored very specific boundaries in place to protect the 4th Amendment.

bush had a 72-hour window after instituting a wiretap that he could request a warrant from FISA. Because he did not even take advantage of that provision, then it's pretty obvious that his agenda has nothing to do with protecting Americans. He's investigating his own personal enemies. Count on it.

Josh Marshall has the explanation on his site at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

My comments were not meant to bolster the thugs at all!

I was only commenting on the quandary for the NYT.

In fact, my comments directly say that the Bushies are
destroying all legitimate means by subverting them...

I know where you stand because I'm familiar with your posting history. But if you present one side of the argument, then present the other, too, just in case someone reads it and is unaware of all the facts surrounding what bush has done.

:hi:

:toast:

You are correct, imho about the bushies making a mockery of of every legitimate effort of our government trying to assure our safety. They have attempted to shred the faith that I have had in my own government, making me cynical and dubious of my governments intentions. My basic concern is that instead of using the liberal FISA laws which were at their disposal, they decided to use this abuse of power, a possible dragnet if you will, against American citizens. Had the Times done any research on the FISA laws, they would have smelled a rat. Ultimately, the administration has been using national security as a way to cry wolf for so long that when, there is a real emergency, we all may be screwed.
:hi:

they could have decided to withhold the story both for national security *and* impact reasons.

If they had published this story any time when the sheeple were completely on board the "terra" express, the reception and treatment of this story of immense importance would have been as bad as any we have seen so far: completely demagogued away by the junta in power.

By publishing it at a time of low credibility for the admin and at a time when Congress is debating the need/justifications for overreaches of power by the executive (aka the PATRIOT act), may be the NYT has shown excellent judgement in terms of timing: I submit as proof the serious, substantive discussion it has engendered.

held back and agreed to not to discuss or hold anyone accountable, claiming that to actually assign blame and resposnsibility before an election would be political...as if informing the voters of the truth and allowing their decisions to be based on the facts is a BAD thing. Worthless fucks.

Them saying "about a year ago" left me pretty certain it was before the election or they would have said "in December 04"

The NYT is declaring it's role as TOOL of this criminal administration.

today's Washington Post, and what some DUers have to say about the treachery of this so-called "free press" of ours:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5645030

To me it's more important why NYT sat omn the story pre "election" than why they finally decided to publish it. To support one of their reporter? How so very criminal! I know!

LET'S IMPEACH NYT!!!
:sarcasm:

My grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather (all newspaper men) all spinning in graves.

All my life I wanted to be a journalist and was one for 12 years (and miss it terribly - but being home at decent hours with my son is more important just now).

This makes me physically ill.

Although I miss reporting, I'm halfway glad I'm not in the profession right now. I think I'd be leaving in disgust at all this shilling.

YUep.

Or do they just bandy it about hoping someone will perceive them in the click :shrug:

I don't give a shit why they are doing it now.

Now, why didn't the NYT do its job and report this Constitutional violation a year ago?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5641346
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek
snip>
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
<snip>

I will wait for the NYT's editorial explaining why the paper did not do its job.

"You are damned if you do and damned if you don't," said Okrent, who often wrote critical reviews of the Times before leaving in May to write a book. "For the right, this information never should have come out. And for the left, it never could have come out early enough."

No, Okrent. You're damned because you didn't. And then, you LIED about it.