Americans Deserve Better
From "Robert Cox: Americans deserve better than Keller’s open letter":
Robert Cox, The ExaminerJun 29, 2006 7:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Who can argue when Bill Keller of The New York Times writes, as he did last Sunday, that the Founders “saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government” or that they were right to reject “the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the president at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”
Yet during the past week, many have questioned The New York Times’ decision to publish a story detailing an ongoing counter-terrorism operation to monitor information about wire transfers through the SWIFT system, an international consortium founded by the world’s leading money center banks. Many have questioned what public interest The New York Times served by disclosing a duly authorized and appropriately disclosed counter-terrorist program that Keller acknowledges has helped to “catch and prosecute financiers of terror” and for which The Times has “not identified any serious abuses of privacy.”
This past Sunday, The Times’ executive editor published an open letter in which Keller incoherently weaves together disparate threads of past Times coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, administration criticism of media reporting of terror attacks in Iraq and other recent disclosures of covert intelligence operations appends a detailed critique of what purports to be the Bush administration’s case for holding off on the SWIFT story and ties up the entire package with the risible assertion that The Times decision was not borne of “any animus toward the current administration.” Nowhere does Keller address the particulars of why he felt it necessary to run the SWIFT story last Friday.
Americans deserve better.
Keller claims, “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality” but the article cites only one expert, L. Richard Fischer, and presents him as unfamiliar with the details of the program. The New York Times quotes a “former senior counterterrorism official,” saying, “The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling “the potential for abuse is enormous” without disclosing whether this former official might have some axe to grind against the administration. Richard Clarke, anyone? The paper claims “Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.” Why is it “nearly 20” and not “19.” Will the Times go back to those 19 people and get them on the record now that the program has been made public? The Times’ claims “Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program.” How many is “some?” Fifteen? Two? If two, then which two?
It comes down to a matter of trust, something in short supply for most Americans when it comes to The New York Times. Since Sept. 11, The Times has published fabricated quotations (Maureen Dowd), fabricated datelines (Rick Bragg) and stories manufactured out of whole cloth (Jayson Blair). The Times, by many estimates, made the administration’s case for war by publishing now-discredited claims about Iraq’s WMD program (Judith Miller). Dan Rather may have made “fake but accurate” famous, but it was The New York Times that honed the practice to an art form. Maybe they could sell T-shirts?
It may not be wise to always take a president at his word, but The New York Times has not exactly cornered the market on journalistic integrity. Yet Keller exposes a vital counter-terrorist program in a story based almost entirely on anonymous sources and asks that we take him at his word. Sorry Bill, that ship sailed long ago.
We will never know the full extent of the damage caused by The New York Times in disclosing the SWIFT monitoring program but have no doubt it was not a benign act. Whatever agony Keller may have gone through in deciding to publish the story will pale in comparison to the agony of the victims of the next terror attack, an attack that might have been prevented save for Keller’s choice.
Playwright David Mamet once wrote of elites “you’re all the same … It’s always ‘What I’m going to do for you.’ Then you screw up and then its ‘we did the best we could. I’m dreadfully sorry’ and people like us live with your mistakes the rest of our lives.”
We may be living with Keller’s mistake for a long time to come.
Robert Cox is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and president of the Media Bloggers Association. Examiner
Robert Cox, The ExaminerJun 29, 2006 7:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Who can argue when Bill Keller of The New York Times writes, as he did last Sunday, that the Founders “saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government” or that they were right to reject “the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the president at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”
Yet during the past week, many have questioned The New York Times’ decision to publish a story detailing an ongoing counter-terrorism operation to monitor information about wire transfers through the SWIFT system, an international consortium founded by the world’s leading money center banks. Many have questioned what public interest The New York Times served by disclosing a duly authorized and appropriately disclosed counter-terrorist program that Keller acknowledges has helped to “catch and prosecute financiers of terror” and for which The Times has “not identified any serious abuses of privacy.”
This past Sunday, The Times’ executive editor published an open letter in which Keller incoherently weaves together disparate threads of past Times coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bay of Pigs invasion, administration criticism of media reporting of terror attacks in Iraq and other recent disclosures of covert intelligence operations appends a detailed critique of what purports to be the Bush administration’s case for holding off on the SWIFT story and ties up the entire package with the risible assertion that The Times decision was not borne of “any animus toward the current administration.” Nowhere does Keller address the particulars of why he felt it necessary to run the SWIFT story last Friday.
Americans deserve better.
Keller claims, “some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality” but the article cites only one expert, L. Richard Fischer, and presents him as unfamiliar with the details of the program. The New York Times quotes a “former senior counterterrorism official,” saying, “The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you’re sitting, troubling “the potential for abuse is enormous” without disclosing whether this former official might have some axe to grind against the administration. Richard Clarke, anyone? The paper claims “Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified.” Why is it “nearly 20” and not “19.” Will the Times go back to those 19 people and get them on the record now that the program has been made public? The Times’ claims “Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program.” How many is “some?” Fifteen? Two? If two, then which two?
It comes down to a matter of trust, something in short supply for most Americans when it comes to The New York Times. Since Sept. 11, The Times has published fabricated quotations (Maureen Dowd), fabricated datelines (Rick Bragg) and stories manufactured out of whole cloth (Jayson Blair). The Times, by many estimates, made the administration’s case for war by publishing now-discredited claims about Iraq’s WMD program (Judith Miller). Dan Rather may have made “fake but accurate” famous, but it was The New York Times that honed the practice to an art form. Maybe they could sell T-shirts?
It may not be wise to always take a president at his word, but The New York Times has not exactly cornered the market on journalistic integrity. Yet Keller exposes a vital counter-terrorist program in a story based almost entirely on anonymous sources and asks that we take him at his word. Sorry Bill, that ship sailed long ago.
We will never know the full extent of the damage caused by The New York Times in disclosing the SWIFT monitoring program but have no doubt it was not a benign act. Whatever agony Keller may have gone through in deciding to publish the story will pale in comparison to the agony of the victims of the next terror attack, an attack that might have been prevented save for Keller’s choice.
Playwright David Mamet once wrote of elites “you’re all the same … It’s always ‘What I’m going to do for you.’ Then you screw up and then its ‘we did the best we could. I’m dreadfully sorry’ and people like us live with your mistakes the rest of our lives.”
We may be living with Keller’s mistake for a long time to come.
Robert Cox is a member of The Examiner’s Blog Board of Contributors and president of the Media Bloggers Association. Examiner
Labels: GWOT
posted by Dewage | 8:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home