Skip to main content

View Diary: Disgrace: NY Times Knew before the Election (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This won't be popular, but... (none)
        The NY Times may have been justified in holding onto the story. Newspapers benefit from the 1st Amendment's extremely wide protections from government interference into their content, since it is very hard to draw the line between official censorship and official business. As such, they are given free reign over what they publish, when, and why. That said, freedom does not require exercise; indeed, it means that the NY Times is free to moderate its content and hold back articles it judges to be in the interest. And that is, unfortunately, right.
       For newspapers need to tread very cautiously when scooping secret matters of national security. No newspaper wants to be responsible for being the mole of foreign powers hostile to the country, unwittingly putting Americans at risk. Bob Woodward, in the 70s, went President Carter before publishing an expose of the foreign leaders we had on payroll, to make sure that he would not be jeapordizing his nation. Cater gave him free reign, and he reported.
        Kennedy, in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, asked reporters not to publish wat they knew because it could jeapordize both the mission and the security of the United States. The reporters complied, although they might have regretted it in Bay of Pigs, they gave proper deference to the CINC.
       Whether the NY Times should have run this a year ago or now is a matter for debate. Wanting to do further reporting make sure they had a solid case, and editing a few parts so as not to compromise national security, is perfectly justifiable in their case. To not consider such concerns is an abuse of their Freedom of the Press.
        Whether it was justified or not, will depend on the circumstances and what they were told. But they are not automatically guilty of wrongdoing for delaying the article.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask, Why Not? ~Robert F. Kennedy

    by Southern Liberal on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:39:45 PM PST

    •  It's not just that the Times didn't print it... (none)
      It's that Bushco asked them NOT to.  If you have a story that says that Bush is doing something illegal, I'd say that trumps any national security concerns, especially since the people saying there are national security concerns are the ones breaking the law.  Add the fact that they COULD have done what they say they're doing LEGALLY, and I'm sorry, the whole thing stinks like yesterday's diapers.  The NYT enabled them, just like they enabled them on WMDs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site