Times Editors Explain SWIFT Decision

The NY Times editors are unintentionally funny in their editorial defending their decision to break open the SWIFT program:

When Do We Publish a Secret? 

By DEAN BAQUET, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and BILL KELLER, executive editor, The New York Times

SINCE Sept. 11, 2001, newspaper editors have faced excruciating choices in covering the government's efforts to protect the country from terrorist agents. Each of us has, on a number of occasions, withheld information because we were convinced that publishing it could put lives at risk. On other occasions, each of us has decided to publish classified information over strong objections from our government.

Last week our newspapers disclosed a secret Bush administration program to monitor international banking transactions. We did so after appeals from senior administration officials to hold the story. Our reports — like earlier press disclosures of secret measures to combat terrorism — revived an emotional national debate, featuring angry calls of "treason" and proposals that journalists be jailed along with much genuine concern and confusion about the role of the press in times like these. 

Ann Althouse (via Glenn) has a good analysis.

But the Times delivered a laugh with the implicit answer to their "When Do We Publish A Secret" question - they publish a secret, like this defense of their decision, on the Saturday of Fourth of July Weekend.

I guess they didn't think they could hold off until Christmas Day.  But why couldn't they find space for this last week?

Comments

[windansea]

losers....

[lurker]

The Fourth Estate is dead. Long live the Fourth Estate.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

Back in the 80's, it became popular for aggressive lawyers to use the R.I.C.O. statutes in Civil matters. I'm not in the 'getting sued' business anymore but the NYT sure seems to me to at least have the patina of a corrupt organization.

[Semanticleo]

Part of what's goin' on here is the lack of creditility assigned to members of this Administration. Perhaps the Times did not accept the veracity of the 'officials' pleadings as having merit. That is the physics of playing loose with the facts a few times. The attempt to control information is legendary with these guys. So if you want to blame someone, blame the WH.

[Semanticleo]

strike creditility, insert credibility.

[clarice]

Strike the whole stupid post IMO.

[SunnyDay]

They claim they were handed he same story in 2003. Why didn't they publish it then?

[lurker]

Patterico's already done his job at shifting the credibility from the WH to NYT and he's already won. NYT's losing subscribers and stock prices going down.

Check Bad News for Pinch

[SunnyDay]

Cleo, we have different starting points. You see lack of credibility. We do not. Those points have been hashed and re-hashed.

We do not believe Bush lied. You do. We will never agree. Your arguments are all based on the "fact" that Bush lied, Plame was covert, Rove is evil, etc etc etc.

[lurker]

SunnyDay, one of the arguments used by Hamdan's plaintiffs was that timing of the war against terrorism. Bush's INHERENT powers right after GWOT was not an issue but over time (e.g., after 6 years), the defense argument of INHERENT powers becomes less justifiable.

I don't understand this argument since this Hamdan case had been going on for a long time.

[Bob]

Good one clarice.

You can't make this shit up

"Perhaps the Times did not accept the veracity of the 'officials' pleadings as having merit. That is the physics of playing loose with the facts a few times."

So now lady leo, it's the WH fault! Give me a freak'n break... since when did the NY Times ever listen to anyone from the WH?

Boy that Rove is better than I thought!

[Semanticleo]

Bob;

Heard of Judy Miller?

Idiot

[boris]

And what happened to JM and why?

[boris]

clown

[boris]

clarice, lol

[lurker]

What is happening with Matt Cooper, Clown?

[Gary Maxwell]

I dunno Bob I would be worried if I were you. the great and powerful Cleo, who has an in the omnipotent astrolger the Great Jerome has proclaimed you an idiot. What are you going to do? Where will you go? Surely you will be shunned by all and have to forage for your meals. I guess you just should have been a little nicer to the the lout.

[lurker]

The Old Gray Lady is heading for extinction. Check Riehl's Op-Ed

So...where's the credibility of NYT, cleown?

[lurker]

Gary, more on Jerome

[Semanticleo]

"What are you going to do? Where will you go? Surely you will be shunned by all and have to forage for your meals"

LMFAO !!

Why, he should go to JOM, of course.

LMMFAO!!!!!

[Barney Frank]

"Strike the whole stupid post IMO."

LOL. Wish I'd said that.

[Bob]

Gary,

You never know if you hit your mark, but when you get a "name calling" like IDIOT, Ya jus noze yuz dun good!

I thing that amazed me is she didn't correct my grammar or spelling. Oh right she couldn't now could she... it would ruin her "creditility".

[Gary Maxwell]

Did the star charts give you that answer. Laughing at your own jokes must really suck but otherwise there would be only silence.

[Semanticleo]

trust me. I'm not the only one laughing.

And if you're not laughing, I certainly understand why

[boris]

it would ruin her "creditility".

That one's going to stick to ms clown forever. Ooops that should be ms MFA clown.

[Bob]

weak lady leo... try again. Go back to name calling. Now that makes us laugh!

[boris]

I'm not the only one laughing

But are you laughing at you like the rest of us are?

[Bob]

boris... she's not the only one. The NY Times has got a boat load of "creditlity" too!

[Semanticleo]

Boris;

When I consider the source, I say...........
LMMFAO!!!!!!

[boris]

whatever MsMFassclown

[Barney Frank]

"LMMFAO!!!!!!"

Not once, but twice.
Maybe it should be "Oedipaleo".

[Old Dad]

Speaking of "creditility," Stalin did not murder millions. Thus spake Walter Jayson Blair Duranty.

Who'd you rather have at your back in a fight? Pinchy or the President?

[Jane]

" one of the arguments used by Hamdan's plaintiffs was that timing of the war against terrorism. Bush's INHERENT powers right after GWOT was not an issue but over time (e.g., after 6 years), the defense argument of INHERENT powers becomes less justifiable.

I don't understand this argument since this Hamdan case had been going on for a long time."

I think I understand it. In the near term, executive powers are considered "emergency powers" so the Court refrains from getting involved. When (apparently at their discretion) the powers cease to be emergency powers the Court gets involved. Since the GWOT is expected to go on for a very long time, we are past the point of emergency.

At least that is my understanding of the argument. I don't buy it now, but I might buy it with a president I don't like in the WH, (my own personal litmus test) which makes me think there is possibly a point there

[Bob]

I wouldn't want anybody named "Pinchy" behind me whether I'm in a fight or just in line to buy a beer. You really need to wonder how one gets a nick name like that.

But the real test is who would want to be on a desert Island with? I'd eat "Pinchy" for lunch!

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
Are we sure this was the real Semanticeo? I know it was stupid enough,but there have been a number of bogus Cements recently.

[boris]

I might buy it with a president I don't like in the WH

A fair argument would be that congress should step up to relieve emergency power with appropriate legislation.

If congress simply stands on the status quo doing nothing, that is their choice, albeit perhaps not a responsible one. Would prefer judges not step in to force the issue but understand that argument. Lets hope damage by precedent is minimal.

[PeterUK]

"trust me. I'm not the only one laughing."
You have "laughing piles" Cement?

[clarice]

"Bogus cements"? What a concept. What's next-- concrete concrete?

[PeterUK]

Does anyone find the picture of Cementicleo sitting in tha attic alone at her keyboard,
"Click tap click,"::Chuckle::"tap tap,"LOL",click tap tap "LMMFOA", like an excerpt from "The Shining"?

[Bruce Hayden]

I am repeating my comments made at Althouse:

Part of their problem is that the NYT is so obviously obsessed with taking down Bush and Cheney, that their objecctivity is suspect. Their behavior during the 2004 election doesn't help their cause - from obsessing about abu Ghraib and Bush's TANG record for months, without questioning why Kerry's discharge was so delayed (and ignoring whether he served even one day of his equivalent Naval Reserve committment), up through the Labor Day Surprise (that backfired). Needless to say, this continued through the Wilson article and their heated insistance that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate the Plame "outing".

So, the NYT editors have repeatedly listened to the Administration and concluded that they hadn't made a case that the NYT disclosing programs would harm those programs. Is it any surprise that many question their objectivity?

And, as pointed out above by Ann, et al., the question isn't about covering up Administration venality, but rather, about the Administration trying to protect relatively successful programs.

[Barney Frank]

Bob,

"I wouldn't want anybody named "Pinchy" behind me whether I'm in a fight or just in line to buy a beer. You really need to wonder how one gets a nick name like that."

Hilarious!

[Bob]

is this the shining your talking about?

[clarice]

OT: The Schofield piece is up.http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5632

[Lesley]

The NYT's is a veritable font of information. Weekends With the President's Men

[JM Hanes]

Lurker

Yet another great link! Riehl's piece on the derivation of the Fourth Estate is worth an UPDATE of it's own, TM. While first usage is usually attributed to Edmund Burke, apparently:

The term actually goes back 90 years earlier than when Carlyle invoked Burke. In 1752, Henry Fielding wrote, “None of our political writers … take notice of any more than three estates, namely, Kings, Lords and Commons … passing by in silence that very large and powerful body which form the Fourth Estate in the community … the Mob.”

Today, better educated, enabled through technology and afforded free time through societal advance, the Mob is becoming less a dingy group of field hands gathered round the public square to hear the news. It is fast becoming more wired in.

It may be five or 20 years away, but the day is coming when a member of the too long overlooked Mob clicks “send” to publish and declares: The Fourth Estate is dead. Long live the Fourth Estate.

What Baquet & Keller now feel nipping at their heels is the real Fourth Estate! Nice, eh?

[PeterUK]

Bob,
Cement is a lot uglier bunny.

[Jane]

"Would prefer judges not step in to force the issue but understand that argument. Lets hope damage by precedent is minimal"

Boris,

I agree with you. The majority really seems to have overreached and entered into the realm of legislating. I'd like to see Congress take action to nullify the decision.

[Wilson's a Liar]

Semanticleo,

What you say makes sense if that is your point of view. But it is JUST A POINT OF VIEW. I believe most of America has a different point of view about this particular program and believe what the Administration says about it. The problem is that your point of view when adopted by the media becomes a license to print anything, with no accountability. Some of us happen to think that isn't very responsible or good for our country. And that's a valid point of view too.

As I've said before, the editors are being very stupid and wrong here. If the decision to publish is a close call, the decision should be NOT to publish rather than to publish. If it wasn't a close call they should have no trouble defending it. The NSA warrantless wiretapping story ws not a close call, and they have had no trouble defending it. Clearly that is not the case with this story. We now have the third attempt in a week by the NYT to help us understand why they ran this story. They are simply confirming to us that the only reason this one was a close call for them is that they just don't believe anything this Administration says. That's fine up to a point, especially if they are willing to be honest about it. But they aren't.

And we have just as valid a point of view, that the revelation of this program has seriously harmed our ability to track down terrorists and was an egregious abuse of freedom of the press.

It's not the end of the world for liberals to just admit that their heroes in the press really screwed up this time.

[Bob]

PUK

Yes I agree, but are you talking about the "all wet" cement or the dry stuff?

[Seixon]

Ah crud. Larry Johnson banned me from his blog for writing this. He should have just done what the Think Progress folks did, out personal details about me in the comments.