Internal Scuffle at NYT

[Tuesday_Morning]

From RawStory.com

New York Times public editor says paper 'stonewalling' him about decision to report eavesdropping story

The New York Times public editor accuses the paper of 'stonewalling' him in his attempts to find out more about the decision to report on NSA eavesdropping after at least a year's delay, RAW STORY has learned.

In his bi-weekly column slated for Sunday's edition, Byron Calame writes that he e-mailed a list of 28 questions to the executive editor and publisher who declined to answer, the first time that's ever happened since he became the paper's ombudsman.

<snip>

To Calame, the "most obvious and troublesome omission" is the failure to adequately address whether the story was ready to publish before the Nov. 2, 2004 election. The few public explanations given by Keller haven't been clear about the exact timing and leaves the public editor with "uncomfortable doubts."

more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Times_public_editor_says_1231.html

And from Byron Calame's column:

Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence

Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, and to offer a few thoughts on some factors that could have affected the timing of the article. My intention is to do so with special care, because my 40-plus years of newspapering leave me keenly aware that some of the toughest calls an editor can face are involved here - those related to intelligence gathering, election-time investigative articles and protection of sources. On these matters, reasonable disagreements can abound inside the newsroom.

<snip>

But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html?pagewanted=print

[Flabbergasted]

1. I read most of "A vast Conspiracy" by I forget

It chronicles the years leading up to the finale of the paula jones case. It took a long time for the media to go for it. It was the drudge report that finally took it over the edge. We are in a similar situation now.

They'll report it when the cost is clear so to speak....

[baldguy]

4. Except "the Paula Jones Case" was bullshit.

The VRWC spent years and put up millions of dollars to try and create a scandal around Clinton.

[Flabbergasted]

6. I agree

But still it took years for the media to finally attack the president openly.

[robbedvoter]

13. No, dear, it didn't. NYT reported on the phony Troopergate as soon as

they made it up - no i year waiting period there. As for the other phony story, Whitewater, the NYT reporter actually was calling FBI investigators nudhing them to look at the documents.
Nice try, though. Same press, two objectives.

[Flabbergasted]

14. No dear...

I agree the media was more antagonistic of Clinton. But there was not a lets go out and get Clinton atitude in the media. They would have liked to but we have the media here following leads that are damaging to Bush as well. They don't follow up on them though. The media did not jump on Clinton with Lewinsky until Drudge got his leak from Tripp or her allies.

Its not that cleancut.

[robbedvoter]

17. yes, there was a let's go out and get Clinton attitude in the media

From Gennifer Flowers, to hair cut gate, to Travelgate, to filegate (and the "gate" was used as such in articles), Vincent Foster - I cannot remember a time when Clinton was NOt accused of something - from dau zero. It may help you to read The Hunting of The President for more specific details of the WRVC that was in place since the campaign - the media was a very active part of it.
For your enlightenment, a snippet from an article on Washington Post:


Secret admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_mamblog&Itemid=90&task=show&action=view&id=372&Itemid=90


Following Bush's one-term presidency, the Post continued to serve the Bush agenda. It was unstinting in its criticism of the Clinton administration, and lurid and exhaustive in its coverage of the various scandals that dogged Bill and Hillary Clinton, invariably conveying the sense that the nation's capital had been invaded by so much Arkansas trailer trash. The Post's Whitewater reporter, Susan Schmidt, was such a reliable conduit of leaks and information from Independent Counsel Ken Starr (Bush's Solicitor General), that she became known to some media critics as "Steno Sue." The paper's voracious approach to Whitewater is all the more revealing in light of the fact that the Whitewater investigation was initiated in the last days of the 1992 campaign by Bush's White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, and that—as reformed conservative David Brock documents in his book, "Blinded by the Right"—the "vast right wing conspiracy" that sought to depose Clinton essentially constituted a "Bush government in exile."

That is, if enlightenment is what you seek.

[gumby]

20. The NYT promoted "Whitewater"

if I'm not mistaken.

You are correct that the "liberal media" was all over Clinton from the start. The list of their attacks is a long one. Even changing chefs was a 'scandal.' The attacks followed them right out the door with Hillary's 'gift registry' and 'vandalism' of the WH.

The press coverage of Bush was totally different, starting with the primaries. All that 'he knows who he is' and all that other fawning crap has just been over the top for the last 6 years. The press have become Traitors.

[ixion]

18. you must be joking

the media went for every bogus story the GOP made up, from Paula Jones to Whitewater, and beat it into the ground. If the press covered chimpy with the same zeal, he would have lost it long ago, IMO.

[Flabbergasted]

21. Ok I'll study more

I try to keep an open mind but ok I concede. I feel like I'm being mocked to suggest something different. Curious.

In addition I have to admit that in that era I was not interested in politics. It wasn't until later that I went back to study Clinton's presidency more.

I do agree however that Clinton had some major time enemies that wanted to take him down at any cost. I just was objecting to the charge that the media steamrolled right along. You have some good evidence they did. I'll read more.

[ixion]

26. hi Flabbergasted, not trying to mock you

:hi:

Just stating my personal opinion. I'm glad you keep an open mind, though. I wasn't into politics until BushCo stole the WH, and I was so incredulous at what I was seeing around me, that I just had to let it out. That's when I found DU. It's a great place to speak what's on your mind. :-)


Welcome to DU!! Glad to have you aboard! :toast:

[Flabbergasted]

31. Thank You

Its good to find people who think alike. It is sometimes difficult to tell what people are really saying on forums. You really miss the emotions.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

30. People here are sensitive that you were

trolling.

I don't think you were, but it could be construed that way by some.

I hope you don't take offense. Just keep reading and you will see.

[Flabbergasted]

32. I understand

And I'm not. One thing that I try to do that the right does not do well is critique my political bent.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

33. Oh, they will critique you to a fare-the-well

LOL.

[robbedvoter]

35. One of his major enemies being...the media!

You and I and a lot of people now here - didn't bother to pay attention at the time. I caught up by reading The Hunting of the President - it's a good read - or just see the movie. You'll find out that there's NOTHING similar in what happened then to what is happening now. In fact they are quite perfectly opposite.
Everyone who was yelling "rule of law" and "Impeachment" is now either silent or wants to hang NYT for treason or screaming "911 changed everything!"
Democrats commit crimes (even when they don't). Republicans - maybe- make mistakes (even when they break the law or cause disasters, wars and recession).
There's a perfect symetry.

[johnfunk]

28. And let's not forget Lisa Myers' boosting of PROVEN LIAR Juanita Broaddric

That's what happens when money and politics control infotainment.

[Chi]

34. The fact that you would compare a President authorizing the illegal

spying on American citizens, to a fabricated story about a Governor being inappropriate is mind boggling.

[OKNancy]

2. Thanks for the link to the article

Interesting

Last two paragraphs:
So it seems to me the paper was quite aware that it faced the possibility of being scooped by its own reporter's book in about four weeks. But the key question remains: To what extent did the book cause top editors to shrug off the concerns that had kept them from publishing the eavesdropping article for months?

A final note: 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.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. this is Hugh, and I am series.

[babylonsister]

5. The silence is deafening, but I'm hopeful not for long. nt

[FogerRox]

7. Kick & recommend everyone bump this to the top

[spindrifter]

9. Kicked and recommended.

[Zen Democrat]

8. What did the Times know and when did they know it?

If they knew it before November 2, 2004, then they were part of the Bush Reelection machine. Hardly the Paper of Record. The NYTimes has always been a bastion for CIA cover. It's time they either shut down the propaganda apparatus, or just shut down.

[stop the bleeding]

10. "Librul" paper my ass, where in the world is my tinhat?

:tinfoilhat:


Happy New Year everyone here's to a better 2006!

:toast::party:

[newswolf56]

11. Recommended.

:kick:

[chaumont58]

12. If it turns out that management of NYT was trying to cover chimpie's...

ass, it wouldn't be the first time our wonderful political press did all they could to bail out chimpie. Last Sunday, on Press the Meat, tired old Brokaw and tired old Koppel both were sure Clinton would have went into Iraq if 9/11 had happened on his watch. They don't fuckin' know that, but its makes chimpie look better if they say so.
Our wonderful, god damn media!! I wonder if any other nation on earth is as badly served as the American people by its political media.

[sallyseven]

19. He would have gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq.

He would have had words with Saudi Arabia too.

[bettyellen]

15. k+r

[EuroObserver]

16. International Herald Tribune:

Try discussing the increasingly dubious quality of that now wholly-owned NYT "paris-based, international" publication.

[EFerrari]

22. And so we're supposed to feel reassured because Calame

is having a hissy fit?

"I'll give you my word as a Spaniard."
"Sorry, I've known too many Spaniards."
-- The Princess Bride

Sorry, I've known too many Public Editors.

"The paper's recent BOLD commitments to readers" are exactly the same as the paper's old BOLD commitments to readers, hollow as hell.

Nice try, Byron. You KNOW that we know to a certainty, the NYTs withheld the fact that BUSH WAS SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS since BEFORE the 2004 election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5648824

"And more, I expect, will be explored and explained in future articles if meaningful allegations can indeed be established as facts. Both Matthew Purdy, the head of The Times’s investigative unit, and Rick Berke, the paper’s Washington editor, assure me that reporters will continue to look into the issue. I’m confident that if they find something, they’ll publish it."

-- Former Public Editor Okrent, Liar.

[EFerrari]

23. Who at Raw Story is working this piece? I couldn't tell

from reading their post.

tia,
Beth

[bleever]

24. I can't tell either

...but I'll take this opportunity to say, Happy New Year, Beth!

It's gonna be a good one.

[EFerrari]

25. Happy New Year, bleever!

Thanks for everything this year. :)

[johnfunk]

27. "Stonewall" Keller and "Pinch" Sulzburger need to be ousted

[rocktivity]

29. Ombudsman? Representative of the readers? BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!

Between Judith Miller and the "Bush is wired" foulup, I figure this ombudsman should have long since quit on prinicipal alone!

:eyes:
rocknation