Why The New York Times Controversy Is Missing On The "Evening News"

(AP)

The escalating war of words over the decision by The New York Times (and other newspapers) to run a story detailing the government's bank-monitoring program has gained attention in just about every national news outlet – except for the CBS "Evening News." Last Friday, the day The Times ran its story, correspondent Bob Orr covered it. The show has not, however, weighed in on the administration's continuing claims that disclosure of the program has harmed national security or the passionate debate over whether The Times should have run the story. At least one group has noticed the lack of coverage -- the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group.

I asked Rome Hartman, executive producer for the "Evening News," about why the program has not covered the ensuing flap and the implication that it was downplaying the importance of the story or covering for The Times. In an e-mail, Hartman responded:

Simply, I don't think it's such an interesting story, and I don't think the audience cares much for stories by the press about the press. Perhaps we should have run the president's comments the other day about how it's disgraceful – other than that, no regrets. If we're covering up for The Times, it's not working out so well. I just don't think there's much to the story for us. They went with their story, they're under attack for doing so.

My two cents: I tend to agree with Hartman that, except for hyper-focused people like us at Public Eye and politically charged observers, the general audience isn't all that interested in stories about the press. And it's hard to argue that the "Evening News" is somehow helping to bury the story. But when a story reaches the level of chatter and political maneuvering that this one has, isn't there some angle of interest worth running? At least up to this point, Hartman doesn't think so, and it's his call to make whether we agree with it or not.

[memekiller]

I think there is a point at which the story is worth covering, but I applaud CBS for not following the pack. The problem is how it is covered. You seem to intentionally do it in such a way as to promote the fact that you're a bunch of liberal hippies out to bring down the administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NYT, via Judy Miller and others, has been one of the White House's most effective enablers, by legetimizing the WH disinformation. There's no context by which to judge. In fact, your treating every smear, no matter how rediculous, as worthy of serious, even-handed discussion makes it seem as though there is actually some merit, when in fact, it's absurd. On the other hand, very reasonable positions on the left are treated as if radioactive, making them seem extremist. Thinking an insurgency might arise in Iraq was unspeakable. The idea of even censuring this President is unthinkable to even mention, it's so far out there. In the 90s, by contrast, MoveOn.org was formed for the singular purpose of censuring Clinton so we could move on to the business of the country. The media has made it clear they feel Clinton's crimes were far, far worse than Bush's by the choices they make. When a station refuses to accept money to run ads of liberal groups, but run any smear by Republicans, they are using their reputation to declare liberal political ads irresponsible, while endorsing the Swift Boat Vets.

[alphaa10-2009]

To One_American-- Just keep reading, and blogging here. The fact you are willing to doubt your own white-knuckled support for Bush for just a nanosecond could be the opportunity you need. Likewise, my own wish, if I have any wish, is always to stay open to new evidence. But even new evidence, so far, does not look very good for Bush or his associates. Bush continues his performance of the past five years, but gets steadily worse and more desperate. Smoke and mirrors will cover only so much and for only so long-- especially in Washington.

[one_american]

"I derive too much confirmation from a variety of sources to doubt my sanity or observations about Bush. (I almost wish it were otherwise.)" You must be highly biased with your "variety of sources". Perhaps things would be different if you REALLY had some variety...but maybe still your wish will come true.

[alphaa10-2009]

GOP Jihadist One_American expostulated-- " By the way alphaa10, do you work for CBS?" Short answer-- NO. Longer, executive summary-- CBS is run by a registered, card-carrying GOP member. CBS ranks are strewn with GOP sympathizers, and that may account for really intense coverage, on occasion, of Britney "Navel-Gazer" Spears, soap opera stars, and Dr. Emily Senay on busy news days. Yet, for all that, CBS is not perfectly conservative, not perfectly liberal, not perfectly anything, but staffed by people who are trying to uphold professional ideals and report the truth-- no matter whom it pleases or upsets-- while remaining steadfastly (and perfectly) human. But moving to New York to join CBS is out of the question. I am content merely to read CBS Public Eye. I meet some interesting people, here-- and I mean r-e-a-l-l-y interesting. And then One_American said, "Sick, sick liberals. Get some help for your mental problems(!)" As for my sanity, as a "sick liberal", I derive too much confirmation from a variety of sources to doubt my sanity or observations about Bush. (I almost wish it were otherwise.) I do, however, read widely and am open to dialogue with many kinds of people. Ultimately, when ideological burdens are cast aside, Americans want our country to prosper under rule of law, justice and peaceful ambition. We are all winners if we stay with the principle of justice and truth, and refuse to operate out of fear, deceit or lust for power.

[one_american]

"So to say that the Times exposed some super top secret, never before seen in public information about how we track bank transactions is just,well.......wrong." If that were true, then why did the Times say it was secret? If that were true, then why did the Times say it was classified information? Show me where is says in the public record (other than the Times) that the program used the "Brussels-based banking consortium, formally known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication" or where it detailed any information on how the program works? You have a conundrum.

[mikeinohio1]

You didn't mention it specifically but I assume, One_American, that you are referring to the published information concerning the SWIFT Program. Well, if you search public records, you will find that Bush signed an executive order shortly after 9-11 that called for "cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism." This order was posted in full on the White House website. Public government records also describe "how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001." That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT. A public report commissioned for the UN Security Council in 2002 specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into in its "war on terror". So to say that the Times exposed some super top secret, never before seen in public information about how we track bank transactions is just,well.......wrong. There is not a single fact outlined in the Times article which is not already public information or would have given any terrorist a new capability to avoid surveillance.

[one_american]

By the way alphaa10, do you work for CBS?

[one_american]

Sick, sick liberals. Get some help for your mental problems.

[alphaa10-2009]

GOP Jihadist One_American said-- "'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States ... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000.'" So, this directly implicates you, One_American. For reasons detailed elsewhere, your faithful support of Bush makes you an accomplice before the fact of Bush's treasonous conduct, acts worthy of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The court, in its mercy, will fine you only $10, and given a life given to study of the Bill of Rights in the US constitution.

[alphaa10-2009]

One_American said-- "Liberal ideology has a strangle hold on this country, and it will kill America..." The liberal ideology of Kennedy and Johnson won elections and fought the Cold War you so enthusiastically championed at the time. Get your bad guys straight, One_American, then you can resume your personal jihad. And then, One_American said-- "The crux of the matter is the willingness of the press to aid and abet the terrorists. In other words; IT'S THE TERRORISTS, STUPID!" Actually, it's still "the economy, stupid" that Bush (ardent free-for-all market maven that he is) is failing to render enthusiastic. Bernanke will kill us all, with his plays to the interest-bearing community (Citibank, etc.), all in the guise of saving the country from inflation. As for fighting terrorists, the chief ally of bin Laden, in a financial sense, is the Bush family. Their money is tied with the money of bin Laden's Saudi holdings. Ever heard of the Carlyle Group? Talk about shared interests! (http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm) But "aiding and abetting terror"? Only terrorists want to neuter the US constitution and Bush is quite busy there. Bush is also Terrorist-in-Chief because he has pooched our response to 911. Given his bumbling record over the last five years, the booming growth of al Qaeda and Islamist jihad movements generally in Iraq and over the whole MidEast, we are actually closer to what bin Laden wants than ever before. Bush is a criminal enterprise, period.