« Al Qaeda forms 527 Group | Main | Coffee Snorters: Oh He Did *NOT* Go There Edition... »
October 24, 2006
NY TimesWatch!: Can The Unitary Editor Admit Fault?
Sacre bleu!
We are reliably informed by the Party in Opposition that humility - the ability to admit fault and learn from one's mistakes - is the mark of a great leader. We are therefore greatly encouraged to note that the Times' ombudsman, Bryan Calame, has (in a moment of earth shattering significance) admitted the Times was wrong to publish details of the SWIFT terrorist tracking program. Such an event must surely cause the earth to shift on its axis:
What do you call it when the ombudsman of the New York Times admits he made a mistake? A good start.Calame has acknowledged that the United States government’s Swift program to monitor overseas banking transactions in order to zero in on suspected terrorists was legal, under appropriate oversight, and posed no threat to law-abiding Americans. He acknowledged that, but for his prejudices, he could have arrived at this conclusion upon reading the original article. He acknowledged that it was a bad idea for the New York Times to reveal this program to our enemies, over the objections of our government, four months ago.
But what is truly stunning about Mr. Calame's mea culpa is the reason he gives for his defense of the Times:
What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.
This, simply put, takes the breath away. Let's walk through the "logic" of what Mr. Calame just admitted:
1. The New York Times broke the law when it bypassed the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the body designated by our government to oversee and investigate intelligence matters), choosing instead to unilaterally and without authority or oversight publish information about a secret
terrorist financial tracking program against the express wishes of the government after being informed that doing so would harm that program.
2. The Times' rationale for doing so was that it had a suspicion the President was bypassing Congress, breaking the law, and acting without proper oversight. Acting on no more than this, Bill Keller, the Unitary Editor, then bypassed Congress, broke the law, and insisted on the right to act without oversight. Apparently, two wrongs do make a right, and if the first of the wrongs turns out subsequently not to have occurred, one can always say "Ooops" in a NY Times column:
According to the Theory of the Unitary Editor, whenever a Times reporter is given unauthorized classified information, Bill Keller's editorial conscience allows him to unilaterally declassify national secrets, bypass Congress, and violate the law in the interest of keeping the nation safe from a popularly elected President who he fears may be bypassing Congress and breaking the law.And the best news of all is that even though the justification for releasing classified information in the first place was that the government was being excessively secretive, it now turns out that the program wasn't even a secret!
In retrospect, we can sympathize with Mr. Keller. With so many contradictory positions to reconcile, life must get extremely confusing. For instance, it would seem transparency is not an unalloyed good. He's all in favor of transparency for government, but not so keen on openness when it comes to how the Times does business. Fair enough. And even the government, when it suits the media, is allowed to keep some secrets. In the Times' estimation, the outing of a single "covert" agent is a dangerous national security breach requiring a special prosecutor; even when the charging statute is one the Times itself held to be unconstitutional when it was passed. The outing of entire classified anti-terror programs, on the other hand, is not only safe, but serves the public good!
3. Keller's ombudsman Bryan Calame, moved by "vicious criticism" of the Times, defended his decision to illegally publish classified information in a national newspaper, evidently "feeling" that the end does, indeed, justify the means and sometimes an unelected free press must break the law and bypass Congress in order to preserve our vital system of checks and balances.
4. Various apologists for the Times "feel" that saying you're sorry should excuse just about anything - including breaking the law...or making excuses for those who do simply because you felt sorry for the underdog.
5. Patterico has called for Bryan Calame to resign, but the logical implications of Calame's admission are clear: the buck doesn't stop there.
Bill Keller should resign. Immediately.
Posted by Cassandra at October 24, 2006 06:54 AM
Comments
Bill Keller should resign. Immediately.
Posted by Cassandra at October 24, 2006 06:54 AM
Shi'ite...he (et al) should have been jailed, months ago.
Posted by: camojack at October 24, 2006 08:53 AM
Bush called the revelations by the NYT of a useful tool to combat terrorism "disgraceful," a term which can be used at least bi-weekly to describe the NYT's factitious reporting and tendentious law-breaking---always to hinder what the possibly criminal cabal of Keller and Sulzberger consider the Bush Administration's Global War on Terror.
The Ombudsman would have a daily column if he actually took the NYT's ethical, journalistic, and legal misdeeds seriously enough to truly investigate their depth and scope.
The SWIFT affair was simply another example of the NYT's war against the war on terrorism.
Posted by: daveinboca at October 24, 2006 10:43 AM
I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times
The what again? The "vicious" criticism? When did that happen? "Disgraceful" is to "vicious" as "chest slap" is to "torture." This self-serving dumbing-down or words is getting very, very annoying.
And even so, what's that advice about staying in the kitchen when it gets hot? Something along the lines of "if you can't take the heat..." I think. It's far past time for these thin-skinned, arrogant jerks to vacate the kitchen if they are willing to do great damage to our country in a fit of pique.
Posted by: Daveg at October 24, 2006 12:04 PM
Look at it this way, Dave: Calame has quite possibly the most secure job in America. His department alone may be unintentionally inflating the 'true' unemployment rate for New York City, thus causing Paul Krugman all kinds of heartache.
Producing various apologia for the many misdeeds of the Times is like housework: a job that will never be done.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 12:06 PM
Now now... it was:
1. Criticism.
2. Of the media
3. By the administration.
4. It was, therefore:
5. Vicious, and
6. Unwarranted.
*smack*
Posted by: Cassandra at October 24, 2006 12:09 PM
I'm sure you meant dumbing down OF words, eh, Cass?
And, it really seems more of an "It's-my-ball-and-I'll-take-it-and-go-home-if-we-don't-play-by-MY-rules kind of temper tantrum" than a "pique".
But that could be just my take on the matter....
Posted by: Sly2017 at October 25, 2006 04:08 AM
We're the only ones trustiworthiness enough...
NYTimes.
Posted by: Masked Menace© at October 25, 2006 09:42 AM