The Times, They Aren't A Changin'?

Today's publication of "State of War" by The New York Times reporter James Risen ensures that the revelations it contains about a secret domestic spying operation will remain in the front of the political debate, and the media discussion as well. Details about the executive order to allow the National Security Agency to listen in on conversations involving people in the U.S. first ran in The Times, of course, but the paper's coverage has since spurred a slew of still unanswered questions.

There are two issues of controversy surrounding the story – what was the sourcing for it and why was it held for over a year? The reticence of Times honchos Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to answer questions from the paper's ombudsman, Barney Calame, certainly hasn't shed light on either issue. In his Sunday column, Calame called the paper's response "woefully inadequate" and told readers that Keller and Sulzberger had refused to answer a list of 28 questions he sent them. He now says that list has grown to 35 (Michelle Malkin suggests Calame print the questions so all can see what they refuse to answer).

Thus far, the story itself appears solid. The administration has not disputed the existence of the spy program, Congress sees enough to be calling for an investigation and the Justice Department has launched a probe to identify who within the government leaked this information to The Times. But big, unanswered, questions remain.

Why did the paper wait so long to publish the story? Was it because they were afraid to make such revelations public in the heat of a presidential election? Did they finally run it just to avoid being scooped by Risen's own book? Will they not discuss the timing because it may lead to uncovering the sources? Or national seurity information? If so, why can't they tell us that? What types of information were left out of the story in deference to national security concerns? Is there information the administration cannot reveal that would cast its efforts in a different light?

Calame takes a hard line on the stonewalling he's encountered at the paper but does give Keller and Sulzberger the benefit of the doubt on one point, writing:

"I have no trouble accepting the importance of confidential sourcing concerns here. The reporters' nearly one dozen confidential sources enabled them to produce a powerful article that I think served the public interest. With confidential sourcing under attack and the reporters digging in the backyards of both intelligence and politics, The Times needs to guard the sources for the eavesdropping article with extra special care. Telling readers the time that the reporters got one specific fact, for instance, could turn out to be a dangling thread of information that the White House or the Justice Department could tug at until it leads them to the source."

Risen called the domestic spying story "the most classic whistle-blower case I've ever seen," and that the sources it was based upon were coming forward on the belief that something wrong was happening in the upper levels of government. Again and again Risen describes the motives of the sources as pure and seemed to dismiss any controversy over the reasons behind the story's appearance. "People should focus on the fact that we published it and it was a great public service," he said. And in an interview with Time magazine, he added, "the frustration over the way things have been going in the Bush Administration had built up within the government. There were a lot of people who were increasingly uncomfortable with what was going on."

Still, in his Time interview, Risen acknowledged that his book requires readers to make a "leap of faith" because the sources are all, in the end, unnamed.

But in the current atmosphere, it's gotten harder to take that "leap of faith." The series of media scandals over the past decade or so, at organizations like CBS, The New York Times, USA Today and Newsweek to name just a few, has taken a toll on the trust once placed in the press. Combine that with the proliferation of criticism and ease of delivering it and any failure to publicly address such issues could be deadly.

It's a concept one would think The Times would be very familiar with in the wake of the Jayson Blair and Judy Miller problems. So far, the paper is asking us to trust them on the sources and the timing of the story. After all we've seen, can we be excused for saying trust, but verify?