I’ll have more later on this somtimes revealing, but mostly incredibly and unabashedly self-serving encyclopedic white-wash of the New York Times journalistic standards via tell-all of the Wikileaks phenomena published by Executive Editor Bill Keller yesterday. But this is truly unbelievable:
The tension between a newspaper’s obligation to inform and the government’s responsibility to protect is hardly new. At least until this year, nothing The Times did on my watch caused nearly so much agitation as two articles we published about tactics employed by the Bush administration after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The first, which was published in 2005 and won a Pulitzer Prize, revealed that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on domestic phone conversations and e-mail without the legal courtesy of a warrant. The other, published in 2006, described a vast Treasury Department program to screen international banking records.
I have vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade me and the paper’s publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story, saying that if we published it, we should share the blame for the next terrorist attack. We were unconvinced by his argument and published the story, and the reaction from the government — and conservative commentators in particular — was vociferous.
What Keller neglects to mention is that the New York Times delayed that story for fourteen months after that conversation with Bush where they were so “unconvinced”. It could have published that story in 2004, when supposedly thusly informed voters would have known that they were voting for a President that instituted a police state where no information was private. But it didn’t. How do we know that? Because in 2006, Bill Keller himself admitted that he held up the story for over a year. My god, such balls!