what's worse: NYT revelation on spying on Americans or keeping it secret?

Village Voice
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/002189.php

Spying and Spinelessness
Stop the presses: It's another book deal.


I don't know what's worse: the New York Times's revelation yesterday that the National Security Agency is illegally spying on Americans or the New York Times's keeping secret in yesterday's revelation that there's a book deal involved.

Go ahead and read the fine coverage of this latest scandal at the formerly great paper by the Washington Post's Paul Farhi ("At the Times, A Scoop Deferred") http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601716.html and Salon's Tim Grieve ("How Long Did the Times Hold Its News?"). http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

But here's something they don't have that you may have forgotten: James Risen, the reporter in the middle of this disgraceful episode of the paper's delaying this "scoop" for at least a year, was involved in a similar (and similarly hinky) deal three years ago with another U.S. spy agency, the CIA.

In fact, the CIA's copy desk wound up editing half of Risen's 2002 book The Main Enemy, as Allan Wolper reported nearly three years ago in Editor & Publisher. Wolper led his January 14, 2003, story with questions for the Times back then that are even more relevant today:

What would Americans think if they knew that their best newspaper, the New York Times, had allowed one of its national-security reporters to negotiate a book deal that needed the approval of the CIA?

What would they say if they knew the CIA was editing the book while the country is days or weeks away from a war with Iraq and is counting on the Times to monitor the intelligence agency?

They would be properly horrified.

One of the golden rules of journalism is that you can't let your source control your content. Another is that you must avoid making financial deals with the people you cover. The reasons are obvious. Reporters turn themselves into pretzels to prove their reporting isn't compromised. And their credibility becomes a casualty of their relationships.

Kinda like an accessory after the fact in criminal court

It's totally unacceptable. Period.

CIA editing.

Here is some info about the first Risen book referred to that is kind of interesting, from Amazon.com:

"The Main Enemy : The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB"
by Milton Bearden, James Risen

"Hardcover: 576 pages
Publisher: Random House; 1st edition (May 6, 2003)
Language: English
ISBN: 0679463097
Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.5 x 1.8 inches
Shipping Weight: 2.0 pounds.
Average Customer Review: based on 21 reviews. (Write a review.)
Amazon.com Sales Rank:
Today: #88,592 in Books
Yesterday: #193,705 in Books"

"Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

Bearden, who headed up the CIA's Soviet/ Eastern European division as the Soviet Union was coming undone, joins with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Risen to chronicle those fateful years.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc."


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679463097/qid=1134963538/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-6699452-7463241?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

It is one thing if the Administration asks reporters to not reveal intelligence methods. For example, when it leaked a few years ago that the US was listening to bin Laden's satellite phone, he stopped using it. That lack of intelligence contributed to 9-11. However, this was different. The NY Times covered up illegal actions for a year that had nothing to do with actual intelligence gathering methods.

I wonder if they could have broken this story before the Presidential Election? Was it " a year" or 13 months that they covered it up?

An expert on the National Security Administration was interviewed Friday afternoon by NPR. He stressed that the current Federal law includes provisions to deal with emergencies. If there is a real threat to national security, wiretaps can be started and continue for a couple days until they can be retroactively approved by a judge. There is a special secret court that already exists to handle these requests. He said that over a thousand approved requests for wiretaps and only a couple denials from this court. The process existed to deal with these situations - Bush just decided to violate the law and the NYTimes meekly cooperated in covering it.

It is cute that Bush is now saying that the illegal wiretaps were used "more than 30 times." Yes, 500 is more than 30.

that is among the most insidious aspects of how this admin operates.

If the NY Times couldn't have broken the story prior to the election or enough prior to make a difference, the timing last week was actually pretty good.

Both as to the Patriot Act renewal, and as a counter to their attempts to use the Iraqi election to bolster themselves.

Both will fizzle.

:shrug:

BTW, I'm pretty sure the revelation about monitoring Osama's cell phone happened after Sept 11, 2001 as they tried to monitor him in Afghanistan, Packistan etc.