NYT: New Public Editor Looks at 'Downing Street Memo' Coverage

[RamboLiberal]

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/thepubliceditor/danielokrent/index.html?offset=47&fid=.f555e99/47

My name is Byron Calame and I'm the new public editor. While Daniel Okrent doesn't formally put the title in my hands until Monday, the flood of reader e-mail criticizing The Times's coverage of the so-called Downing Street Memo has moved me to lease some space in his Web Journal a few days ahead of schedule.

Some background: The secret minutes of a July 2002 meeting of top advisers to British Prime Minister Tony Blair were published May 1 by The Sunday Times in London. Critics of the Bush administration and the Iraq war have focused on two matters in the minutes. One is the suggestion that Mr. Bush had decided to go to war earlier than he has acknowledged. The other is the statement that the chief of Britain's secret intelligence service had returned from a visit to Washington where he found that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Here's one of the less strident reader e-mails, from Leslie Lowe of New York City:

"After all the mea culpas about the poor job the NYT did on pre-invasion news analysis, I find it noteworthy that the paper has barely mentioned the memo by Matthew Rycroft that rocked the U.K. and nearly cost Blair the election. According to the Rycroft memo, the authenticity of which has not been disputed, the decision to invade Iraq had already been taken as of July 2002 and the 'intelligence' was subsequently cooked to justify what the U.K. Attorney General deemed an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

<snip>

My checks find no basis for Ms. Lowe's concern about censorship or undue outside pressures. Rather, it appears that key editors simply were slow to recognize that the minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue — their authenticity undisputed — probably needed to be assessed in some fashion for readers. Even if the editors decided it was old news that Mr. Bush had decided in July 2002 to attack Iraq or that the minutes didn't provide solid evidence that the administration was manipulating intelligence, I think Times readers deserved to know that earlier than today's article.

[swag]

1. Good post. Two thoughts:

1. Good riddance to Daniel Okrent.

2. Is Doug Jehl the only national affairs journalist on staff at NYT?

[RamboLiberal]

9. Check out the slap Okrent took at Krugman and Dowd

Good riddance to that bastard. And this new guy doesn't sound a whole lot better.

2. Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/weekinreview/22okrent.html?hp

[TexasLawyer]

39. commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments

Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments.

Even if Gonzales had made that "correction," anyone with half a brain can see what utter bullshit it is. No one in the Bush Administration was worried about whether their "war on terror" prisoners were getting proper commissary privileges. They wanted a way to torture prisoners while, at the same time, avoiding "war criminal" status.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/site/newsweek/

Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings

Could Bush administration officials be prosecuted for 'war crimes' as a result of new measures used in the war on terror? The White House's top lawyer thought so.


Suspected Taliban and al Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base kneel down before military police as prisoners are processed into the detention facility in January 2002

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff

Newsweek

Updated: 9:14 a.m. ET May 19, 2004May 17 - The White House's top lawyer warned more than two years ago that U.S. officials could be prosecuted for "war crimes" as a result of new and unorthodox measures used by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism, according to an internal White House memo and interviews with participants in the debate over the issue.

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."


One key advantage of declaring that Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protections is that it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote.

<snip>

[In Truth We Trust]

2. "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

[Mairead]

37. Yep. Same old same-old.

EVERY DAMNED TIME they do the same 'Oh we screwed up, we should have done it better'. But they never, ever actually do it better.

It's like the clothes-tearing symbolism in the middle east--some 'repent' and are 'distraught' so often that they have a 'rip' put into their clothes and closed with basting stitches, so it's easier to 'tear'. Real sincerity!

[thebigidea]

3. this Taubman guy sounds like part of the problem

" It is mighty suggestive that Lord Dearlove, the chief of MI6, came home with the impression, or interpretation, that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' However, that's several steps removed from evidence that such was the case. The minutes did not say that Mr. Tenet had told that to Lord Dearlove or that Lord Dearlove had seen specific examples of that. The minutes, in my estimation, were not a smoking gun that proved that Bush, Tenet and others were distorting intelligence to support the case for war."

Several steps removed? Well, its a damn good start and deserves some investigation and questioning of the involved parties under oath, wouldn't ya say? The chief of MI6 isn't a dopey temp or something.

what the fuck do they want? A transcript of Bush's internal thoughts recorded through some fantastic Dr. Frink device?

I'm so tired of this "well, we don't know that he lied unless we can prove that was his intention."

fuck his intentions and thoughts, judge them by their actions: they flat out lied. Repeatedly.

... and people like Taubman are part of the reason why they got away with it.

[lanlady]

22. the problem with Lord Dearlove

The director of MI6 is "several steps removed" from the process whereby Judith Miller whored for Ahmed Chalabi. Therefore, his opinion is suspect.

[tandem5]

4. I think they have these template "oops - honest mistake" letters on file

with topic fill-in-the-blanks... which is fine for the average American with a news cycle attention span of less than a week - pure hell for the rest of us though.

[Nite Owl]

5. And so we see that the NYT is

really on this one. :sarcasm:

Oh yes, they are sending their best reporters over to Great Britain to investigate and question those mentioned any day now.

How many reporters did they have camped out in Little Rock for the explosive Whitewater investigation?

[chelsea0011]

23. The "old news" quote made me cringe. Maybe they can finally

get to the bottom of Whitewater and how Hillary dragged Vince Foster's body to the park. How many years did this go on? How many years did Starr investigate Foster and keep the results hidden. When he finally released them years later, the Times covered the "old news" even though most the world understood Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Foster's death.

[Dr Fate]

30. The Iraq War is a CURRENT EVENT. It is haapening NOW.

THey are out right lying- "old news!"

THis is NOT old news.

[MrModerate]

6. Folks, the standards have changed.

Through a ceaseless barrage of lies, which for convenience let's assign a starting date of November 3, 2000 (even though it's really been going on for much longer), Republicans are held to a substantially lower standard of truthfulness.

They have so pounded the MSM that the media types simply don't think truthfulness matters -- to them or their audience. Note Calame's statement: "even if the editors decided it was old news . . ." OLD NEWS that the president of the US had explicitly lied us into a war.

Can you imagine what such an assessment would have done to the career of any previous president? Impeachment city, probably voted on in less than a week.

This was the plan all along: lower the bar to behavior so the thugs can do whatever they want.

They won, we lost, the country's so degraded that things look pretty hopeless.

Any optimists out there?

[justjones]

21. *Insert sound of crickets* .....

as an answer to your question, "Any optimists out there?"

[daleo]

7. It is old news that Bush planned and executed a war crime.

Ho hum, according to NYT.

[tandem5]

8. I thought you knew!?

but everybody does it - right? I committed a couple of war crimes this morning... no big.

[rodeodance]

17. yeah--the old news bit is really digusting--since many Americans

do not yet seem to know this old news!!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Whitewater was old news too

but that didn't stop them from harassing Bill Clinton over it, all the way to impeachment.

[demo dutch]

25. and still think there are WMD's in Iraq and Saddam had ties with

Al Qaeida

[acmejack]

24. All the news we choose to print

Pretty damned short statute of limitations. If Krugman and Dowd are worth a darn they will find a real news paper to write for. I will never pay the whores at NYT $50/year to read the op-eds. They are the only two I want to read there anyway.

[redacted]

10. I just don't understand. . .

Why no journalist wants to investigate this. What is wrong with them?

Lazy, I guess. They benefit too much from the status quo.

Congress won't hold hearings? I think some under oath testimony is called for . . .

I know it's old news, but I feel like nobody really cares. We went to war over lies -- someone needs to accept somne responsibility for this. Someone needs to go to jail.

[KoKo]

26. No mention of Conyer's letter with 89 Signatures sent to Bush?

When a US Congressman and 89 others request information the NYT's doesn't think it's news?

See how they try to spin us. They think if they only answer parts of a question, we will forget the rest. They think we will give up, too. But, we won't.

[bpilgrim]

11. they reveal themselves to be COVERING UP this illegal REGIME again

they have NO shame and if it wasn't for the INTERNET's pass'n the word they probably would have gotten away with it but they are MISERABLY unprepared to deal with this new form of communication.

when the history books are written the www will be credited for exposing the corporate media for the high paid shills that they are.

hat's off to all who tirelessly work to expose these shills for the elite. :toast:

peace

[KittyWampus]

32. You Got It. This Is Proof Of Complicity.

[lovuian]

12. Its the Biggest CONSPIRACY of the century and News Media

are not reporting...Why its part of the cover up and conspiracy!!!

[JDPriestly]

13. Smug, Complacent and Condescending

Are we supposed to be impressed by this guy? If it is old news that Bush had definitively decided to go to war by July 2002 based on what his British ally's intelligence chief believed was thin evidence, why haven't members of the media asked for explanations and a good look at the White House documents about exactly what they did decide and when long ago? Imagine this was the Clinton White House. The New York Times would have been outraged by the memo. Smug, Complacent and Condescending -- and Incompetent and Irresponsible -- That's the New York TImes.

By the way, did you see the Pincus op-ed piece in the Washington Post earlier today? It was a step in the right direction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1490365

[TankLV]

27. More importantly, why,after EVERY TIME being proven & caught in LIE after

LIE, does the so-called press not begin EVERY fucking press release or piece on repukes and particularly THIS ADMINISTRATION of CRIMINALS with the words: "You have constantly and consistently been proven in a record of LYING to the American people. Having proven this, why should ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU EVER SAY AGAIN, and, logically, your statements on this current topic?"

THAT would be fair and balanced!

[JDPriestly]

14. Baloney

"As I read the minutes, they described the impressions of the head of MI6, who had recently returned from Washington, where he had met with George Tenet. It is mighty suggestive that Lord Dearlove, the chief of MI6, came home with the impression, or interpretation, that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' However, that's several steps removed from evidence that such was the case. The minutes did not say that Mr. Tenet had told that to Lord Dearlove or that Lord Dearlove had seen specific examples of that. The minutes, in my estimation, were not a smoking gun that proved that Bush, Tenet and others were distorting intelligence to support the case for war."

Just a minute, the "impressions of the head of M16" who had just returned from a tete-a-tete with Tenet is "several steps removed from evidence that such was the case." This is amazing. The head of M16 presumably had access to the same intelligence as Tenet and Bush, so his judgment would reflect the head of M16's opinion about the raw data, not just his understanding of what Tenet had said. What is more the head of M16 is trained to make and responsible for making accurate impressions and interpretations of his conversations with people like Tenet (unlike the NYT reporters). The peace and wellbeing of his people depend on the head of M16's ability to do that. And the Times reporter has the chutzpah to say that is not "a smoking gun that proved that Bush, Tenet and others were distorting the intelligence."

The head of M16 is an expert, and he was expressing an expert opinion in the field of his expertise. In a court of law, his opinion is worth far more than that of some half-educated editor/reporter for the New York Times. Give me a break.

There must be dozens of bloggers who know more and have better judgment than that NYT editor/reporter. What do these guys learn in journalism school? They certainly don't learn a serious discipline like law or medicine. A friend of mine who studied journalism told me they simply learn to write -- to produce copy really fast. They don't study history, etc. very intensively. Hopefully the standard is a little higher than that at the NYT. But, judging from this article, maybe not. What a bunch. Who needs them?

[Michael_Bush]

15. Even that is lies

First off, I completely agree with you about the head of MI6 and the value of his "opinion" in a court of law.

Now, to play devils advocate, while you could make the case that his observation that facts were being fixed "could" be the result of some error on his part, or misunderstanding of the American intelligence process. Don't forget, we know things we DON'T tell the Brits and they know things they DON'T tell us.

However, his statement they wanted to go to war in 2002 isn't one of those things that has layers, or subtlety of meaning. Ffixed doesn't mean the same there, one "fixes" photographs when you develop them so you could argue about its meaning, but you if said they were planning to go to war, that has a very specific meaning, one that isn't open to debate and is in clear contrast to the various lies Bush has told.

It amazes me how many people, outside of here, that do not know how many big American stories break in Briton first.

[TankLV]

28. And, has this idiot ever written a meeting report ("minutes")?

Just when does he think that any minutes are written - as they are spoken?

ALL meeting report are written "after the fact", and even a few days removed from the actual event, from hand notes or recordings, to make sure they are correct and to allow for all the other things a person has to do.

This guy is another repuke apologist/shill.

[dchill]

16. Here's my thing...

What is it about Bush v. Saddam that the U.S. press just doesn't (or won't) get? Invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion BEFORE Bush was even selected in 2000. He was hand-picked by PNAC and other patrio-profiteers as someone who could be "guided" and also had a grudge - ("He tried to kill my dad.")

These guys went to Texas and enlisted this piece of work to do exactly what he did. I didn't know it at the time, but when I heard Junior would seek the presidency I instantly thought "Oh shit - he'll find an excuse to go after Saddam." With all the death and other good stuff that would entail, I figured sure enough some wise folks would write about this, expose it, and it would never happen.

Well, people did write about it - they just weren't in the USMSM Corps. The Downing Street Memo is just one more brick in the wall of evidence that Bush lied to the dumb and the ill-informed and the 'Murican people to get his war of Iraqi WMD Freedom.

http://www.culturechange.org/Bush_planned_Iraq_before.html

[snot]

18. Note the schizo-logic (which seems to typify conservatives lately):

They didn't publish because

1. they didn't consider it sufficiently established as true

OR

2. it was established as true some time ago and so is old news.

I wonder if Mr. Calame could start by just getting them on the record -- which was it?

[paineinthearse]

19. Daniel Okrent is/was a pomous ass

I have an email from him poo-pooing my critique of the Times' lack of coverage of the Gannon/Guckert story. Glad to see he has been 86'd.

[Dr Fate]

29. "OLD NEWS???" I could have sworn the Iraq war was a CURRENT EVENT.

Why do the liars insist on refering to this a "old news?"

[bunny planet]

31. Hmmmm, and just why were the key editors 'slow to recognize that the

minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue- their authenticity undisputed - PROBABLY needed to be assessed in some fashion for readers' WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF. They never needed to assess the life-and-death issues about the war before it happened, they just printed anything at all that supported it and played down any inconvenient facts that didn't. G_d I hate the NYTimes. I am so glad I cancelled delivery of that paper and wrote a long letter explaining exactly why I was doing so, called up and told them over the phone too.

Now it seems the magazine section has an article about Santorum. Wonder how hard hitting that will be.

[OETKB]

33. Time For a Bill of Rights For Media Workers

The constitution has provided special protection for those who bring us our news. However it has not been spelled out in detail what the responsibilities and privileges of those working in media are. Common Cause with sponsorship from many groups has put together a Bill of Media Rights. Is it time? My take it should be media workers or else we are in the same ball park as calling corporations persons, another injustice to our system of laws and a false one at that. Take a look:



<http://www.citizensmediarights.org/atf/cf/{A7EF9246-7BDF-4529-A77E-18184247FF52}/BILL%20OF%20RIGHTS%202A%20PAGES.PDF>

[Logansquare]

34. Excellent idea. Our media, much like our military is in danger of losing

it's best and brightest due to the interference of biased or timid management.

[oxbow]

35. So Where is the reporting?

We are just asking for some investigative reporting, for the next level of inquiry on this story. Why does this memo contradicts the findings of the presidential commission and others' investigations into Iraq Intelligence failures? Specifically, why did those panels find no evidence of politicization or manipulation of the information used in the runup for war, when the UK memo suggests that this was precisely what happenned? What about the 89 congressmen who sent a letter to President Bush asking for some answers about this memo? Did the White House not read their letter either? This all seems very strange. There is a major story brewing here, and I am simply asking them to please take the next step on it.

Investigative journalism is dead. don't know why I bother.

[neverforget]

36. "Slow to recognize" if that doesn't sum up the American media, I don't

know what does. On second thought, maybe "useful idiots" would be better.......

[Garbo 2004]

38. The Pentagon Papers were 'old news' too when released but as I recall

the Times covered the story and has spent decades patting itself on the back for its coverage of that and Watergate.

Now the Times' editors apparently can't be bothered with such things (and/or are no longer are capable of recognizing what constitutes actual "news") and prefer instead to take dictation from the Administration and its cronies and present it as "investigative journalism" ala Judith Miller.

Bah!

[chlamor]

40. kick n/t

"The occupiers should leave immediately," he explains while sipping tea, "They only came with their own interests and we can manage Iraq for ourselves. We do not need them for any reason."