All Blog Posts from Public Eye

The debate continues to rage over the decision by The New York Times and others to publish details of the government’s bank monitoring program. The passionate argument brings to mind two recent examples at CBS News that are worth revisiting to get some idea of how the balance between the public’s right to know and security issues are handled.

Pentagon correspondent David Martin told Public Eye last February about a story he didn’t run after defense officials argued that the story could help the enemy in Iraq. Here’s how Martin explained the decision back then:

This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy. I didn’t find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there’s a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve done that a number of times over the years, and each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm. It’s always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you’re under deadline pressure.

In a follow-up post, Martin addressed critics of his decision and explained his reasoning in detail. Martin also provided an example of a story he didn’t hold:

The same week I killed the story on IEDs, I did a story on new photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, photos the Pentagon had gone to court in an effort to keep secret, arguing that their publication could lead to violence against American soldiers. I found that a stretch, and I had no qualms about doing the story. Why does one seem like an attempt to suppress a bad news story and the other seem like a concern for legitimate secrecy? Like I said, you know it when you see it. But it was a close call, and I can understand why some people would think it was the wrong call.

Read full post…

Here we go again. Last week, the New York Times revealed the existence of a secret government program in which counterterrorism officials "examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States." And Republican representative Peter King ain't happy about it.

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," said King. He said yesterday that he is urging Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times - the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

Also yesterday, Times executive editor Bill Keller explained in a letter why the paper ran the story. Keller opened the letter by providing a basic explination about where the paper was coming from: "The question we start with as journalists is not 'why publish?' but 'why would we withhold information of significance?' We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so."

And Keller writes that the Times didn't get one here. After listening "patiently and attentively" to the concerns of Administration officials who wanted the Times not to publish the story, Keller writes that the Times found their central argument – that "international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day" – "puzzling." The banks have a legal obligation to provide the information thanks to subpoena, he notes – and besides, if "the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it."

Read full post…