The New York Times, a case for withholding immediate judgement

I'm writing this because no one has really addressed the idea, and I feel it needs to be said. I am disappointed with the Times, as can be seen from the vast majority of comments and posts at the moment, I am not alone in that sentiment.

I am in fact fairly moderate in my opinion, comparted to the rage being expressed. I want an explanation, and not just the brief blurb of an explanation available through CNN. I want to see a major editorial discussing this story and its implications, way more than was seen for the Judy Miller debacle.

However, I do think that credit should be given where credit is due. More on the flip...

In one of the comments, someone asked how it was that the times had this MAJOR story for a year, and no one else in the MSM ever got a hold of it. This is a good question, possibly more important than the question of why the Times held on to the story.

The last thing I want to do though is to excuse the Times, every time I think about how the whole world might be different if they had this story, and published it, before the last election... well, I have to count to ten... or a hundred... in several languages.

They did however report it, eventually, and at a pretty good time, as this story did make a difference in the Senate filibuster of the Patriot Act, and I think it made a bigger difference in that respect than it would have if it had been published even a day earlier. Essentially, it was published with the perfect timing for maximum anger at the administration and minimum rebuttal before the cloture vote.

On the other hand, imagine what it would have done if it had been published the day before the election... right, deep breath.

Obviously the biggest question the Times needs to answer is, did it have this story BEFORE the election?

But trying to stick to the point. I don't think that taking a year to check up on the story is in itself inherently a bad thing. This is a major story, the reaction to the story, not just by liberals but by some big name Republicans, is clear proof of that. I think that the times wanted to be very sure of its information, and I hope that in the course of that they turned up a lot more than they initially had. I will give them some credit for that until more information is revealed.

What they were facing, assuming they broke this story after the election last year, there's not really a defense if they had the story before the election... Anyway, what they were facing was a powerful newly reelected White House, claiming a mandate from the people that is known as incredibly hostile to the press, and this White House was putting pressure on them.

I don't think this pressure came in the form of Scott McClellan saying "Please don't reveal this story, New York Times, if you don't I'll be your best friend..." I think that they were approached by a White House that made itself very clear that publishing the article would be a threat to national security, and that as a result criminal charges would be dropped on Times staff like balloons on the Republican National Convention.

Even given that kind of threats from what was at the time a very strong White House, should the Times have reported the story, yes. But should they have reported the story ASAP? I'm not so sure.

Assuming that they got this story after the election, of course. Because then what they're faced with is perhaps challenging a strong White House, with a weak, but mind-blowing story, or taking their time, building up their strength and challenging the White House with a very strong story. And hey, this is a very strong story, almost impossible for the White House to refute, and it is quite possible that this was not the case a year ago, or even 6 months ago.

Of course it is an even stronger story because, somehow, miracle of miracles, and Fitzmas be praised, this White House has finally found its lies collapsing in on it. Certainly this story is more believable because of the recent scandals of this White House; renditions, torture, lists of protesters, etc.

So I'm not saying the New York Times is guilt-free here, but I am saying that I have a few questions I would like answered before I totally villify them. This story, even now is a god send, and may well lead to impeachment, I mean, if 34% of Americans favored it before this story well, I can only imagine how many support it now.

So let's ask the times some important questions, like when they got this story? and how the story developed over the course of the year or so that they had it? Until we know those answers we can't really decide if the Times was a little over-cautious, or criminally negligent.

If you've made it this far, thank you for listening.

•  Thanks for writing this

  I'm pretty hot-headed and have cancelled my Times subscription again and again . . . only to resubscribe again and again.

  You're asking good questions.  If the Times answers them, they could go a long way toward restoring trust.

  A year seems like too long.

  by Anglico on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:36:17 PM PDT

  •  Public Editor

    My hope is that the Times' Public Editor, Byron Calame takes this up at his earliest opportunity.  It was his involvement in the Judith Miller fiasco that really exposed her for the power-hungry, paranoid loon that she's become, and in some ways forced the hand of Executive Editor Bill Keller.  Unfortunately, his principal columns tend to run every other week and are published in the Sunday Week in Review section, which generally is put to bed late Friday evening.  His next scheduled column is expected to run this coming Sunday, Dec. 18.

    Since Calame had presumably already written his column on some other issue, the publishing of the story today would leave him little time to do a complete rewrite.  Perhaps he'll post a supplemental online column addressing the timing and withholding issues, or maybe he'll defer his "reader's letters" column which would run next Sunday (the 25th).  Letters can be sent to Calame at [e-mail].

    by The Maven on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:09:52 PM PDT

•  This is all of one piece

  You can either forgive the upper management of the Times for this or not.  I will not because this is all part of the same issue.  Judith Miller and the WMD fiasco, and this are all part of the same phenomena.

  That is, historically, when the country goes to war, the executive tries to control the media.

  After the last round of media consolidation, it became a matter of calling in a few corporate chiefs.  This was not a hard thing for this administration to do.  The exception was the TImes.  So, they did what all Presidents from do.  They pulled the publishers in and bullshitted them, tried to enlist them "in the effort".  And to their everlasting disgrace Pinch and the gang decided to go along.  That is how we got Judith Miller's access and her special status.  The pipeline from Chalabi to the front page.  And this is just another consequence of the fact that the old grey lady joined the "war effort" sometime in September of 2001.

  by SW on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:41:18 PM PDT

  •  Of course

    This may indicate repentance.  But Christ it is awfully late.

    by SW on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 06:45:07 PM PDT

  •  Judith Miller

    Still an albatross.

    Through her (and others, no doubt) Times became a propaganda paper for the White House, one reporter tossed because he made up stories, and another so embedded in an investigation (and also making up stories) so they couldn't properly report on the CIA Leak...and the delay Miller caused got the WH past the 2004 elections.

    Then, with the questions swirling about Miller, and a special prosecutor sniffing about, they have this story land in their laps (somehow, and with the timing as per the elections still in question), and the WH again breathing down their necks, they have to ask themselves if they should run with it, or sit on it and hope they can somehow work around the WH.

    Somehow, I don't find it difficult to believe that threats were being made towards the Times. And with the WH (at the time) still a formidable opponent, they were afraid of what that retaliation would be.

    Why they didn't print this story after the Judith Miller affair, if only to salvage their reputation, is an answer only they can give. As is why they chose now to do so rather than earlier.

    But I'm afraid the Times, like Bush, has an insurmountable credibility problem. Like Bush, there's over five years of suspicious activities, surrounded by characters of dubious integrity, and wrapped in an air of corruption.

    by PatsBard on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:32:04 PM PDT

•  I think the Dan Rather fiasco

  may have had something to do with the delay...

  Still, I'm not impressed. The Dan Rather fiasco should have accelerated publication, once the evidence was strong enough.

  by peeder on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:07:10 PM PDT

•  Yeah, I suppose you;re right

  How 'bout we give the once-great newspaper of record a year to carry Bush's water for him, before we take them to task?

  So -- let's set a date at which we can get together and discuss this.

  I was thinking...Right. Effing. Now.

  But maybe it's just me.

  by cskendrick on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:13:39 PM PDT

  •  damn right

    I am not giving them another New York minute...

    Anyone want to convince me the Times didn't know Miller was a stoolie for the pentagon and the neo's, with her "classified clearance" and prancing around Iraq and all her cuddling and smoozing with Chabali?

    ....there is more news in some of their op-ed columns than in their news section...

    by Cal45 on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:50:52 PM PDT

•  WaPo has a new story up on the NYT

  At the Times, a Scoop Deferred
  

  The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.  [...]
  
  More recently, the Times has been scooped by the Los Angeles Times on a story that the U.S. military has been secretly paying to run favorable stories in the Iraqi media, and by The Washington Post on the revelation last month of a secret network of CIA prisons for terrorism suspects in foreign countries. The Times announced last week that it was replacing its deputy bureau chief in Washington, which outsiders read as a sign of the paper's dissatisfaction with its Washington coverage.

  by Terre on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:18:02 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    That is the kind of information I've wanted to hear about. I hope the times addresses their decision to replace the deputy bureau chief in Washington and how that might be connected to this story.
    

    by Lepidus on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:24:24 PM PDT

•  Great minds, and all that.........

  
  This is exactly what popped into my mind a little while ago.  The Times released this little story at a superb time.  Even if the MSM lets it die, and even if the calls for investigation are forgotten by next week, the revelation, at this crucial time,  did one extremely important thing.  

  by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 07:31:19 PM PDT

  •  It may be petty but I am also grateful

    that some of the self-congratulatory Bush posturing on the Iraqi elections has been leached away by this story today.

    by viral on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

•  One more thing to consider

  How much did they flesh out the story after they first went to the White House a year ago?  If they spent the last year double and triple checking facts and looking for additional bits of info or new sources, I can understand that.  But I will be pretty upset if the story as published is pretty much identical to the story they presented to the White House a year ago.

  by MattR on Fri Dec 16, 2005 at 08:09:29 PM PDT