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…

When The New York Times has lost Jeff Jarvis, a high priest of “transparency,” are they in danger of losing their argument for publishing details about the U.S. government’s bank-monitoring program? BuzzMachine’s Jarvis dissects the public explanation New York Times executive editor Bill Keller provided. Jarvis notes Keller’s position that it is not the paper’s place to ultimately pass judgment on the program’s legality, only to report on it. Jarvis:

So that is saying that we deserve to know everything, absolutely everything. As a worshiper of speech protected by the First Amendment and of transparency as the new virtue of journalism and of reporting as a pillar of a free society, you’d think I’d be applauding that sentiment. It sounds good. But I don’t think it washes in real life. Newspapers know plenty they choose not to reveal: from troop locations to undercover cops’ identities to corporate moves that affect shareholders (you can be reporters get the same leaks blogs do). If they revealed all they knew at all times on all subjects, that would be a defensible model — ‘If we know it, you know it.’ But they keep secrets so they get secrets and also to act responsibly. So this notion that not telling us about the banking program preempts the roles of lawmakers, judges, and voters is, well, somewhat specious.

Jarvis’ bottom line: “I don’t think it’s known that the program is either illegal or ineffective. But I also think it is possible enough that revealing its existence can do the program and the nation harm, so I would not have revealed it.”

But, Keller tells Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz today that his view is just the opposite, saying, “I always start with the premise that the question is, why should we not publish? Publishing information is our job. What you really need is a reason to withhold information."

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…

For partisans on the right and left, the latest round of finger-pointing on Katrina was mostly viewed through the prism of politics, or, more accurately, from the standpoint of short-term political gain. For many on the left, the pre-Katrina preparations and warnings about the hurricane provided validation of their view of President Bush and his administration as a group of bumbling, incompetent bureaucrats who don’t shoot straight. For those on the right, the hype over the briefings confirmed their belief in a liberally biased press pursuing an anti-Bush agenda with the barest of cover.

Reality, as usual, likely lies somewhere outside of these simplistic narratives, but the story helps bring into relief the enormous fault line existing between the government and the press today – and the atmosphere of mistrust that seems to go beyond the traditional institutional tensions.

Let’s think about what the video of the briefing, which Mr. Bush participated in, that “surfaced” last week really told us – that officials knew Hurricane Katrina was a powerful storm that appeared likely to inflict very heavy damage on the Gulf Coast, including to the city of New Orleans. The purported smoking gun in the whole thing was a statement by meteorologist Max Mayfield that he couldn’t say whether or not the protective levees around New Orleans would be “topped” or not, but it was a possibility. That statement would seem to directly contradict the president’s statement after the storm that nobody “anticipated the breaching of the levees.”

Does “topping” mean “breaching?” Not according to NBC’s Lisa Myers, who reported this last Thursday: “Today Mayfield told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped not breached and that on the many conference calls he monitored, nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.” Administration officials and defenders spent a good part of last week saying the same thing and pointing to further evidence from the time that the governor of Louisiana told the White House the levees had not been breached when, in fact, they had (and the AP itself issued a “clarification” of the story).

Still, the briefing and other reports – including one in which former FEMA director Michael Brown said the president was asking specific questions about the levees – suggest that the attempt to say the prospect of such widespread disaster was not considered is a bit disingenuous itself. So where does all this leave us? In the same post-facto blame-game, that’s where.

Read full post…

Jim Romenesko has gotten a hold of an interesting staff memo written by The New York Times’ executive editor, Bill Keller which announces a new line of communication being opened between the paper’s reporters and the public:

Beginning on Tuesday, readers of nytimes.com who click on a staff byline (we're only doing this with staff names, which appear underlined and in color), will, in addition to seeing other articles by that writer, be able to e-mail the reporter. That reader e-mail will be routed without disclosing the address of the reporter, thus keeping regular e-mail boxes free of additional junk mail.

More:

That doesn’t mean that every personal attack must be parried, every anti-Times campaign repulsed, every line-by-line analysis rebutted in kind. It simply means that readers should be heard and, whenever possible, engaged. In many cases, no reply will be called for beyond the auto-reply acknowledging that a reader's message has reached you. In other cases, a polite acknowledgement will be plenty. And in all cases, it's worth keeping in mind that what you say to readers and how you say it will be taken -- rightly or not -- as representative of The Times.

We’ll be keeping a close eye on how this new spirit of openness works for The Times. In the meantime, don’t forget that Public Eye is your opportunity to be heard and answered by the folks at CBS News, so feel free to e-mail us with your questions, concerns and comments.

Read full post…

There’s no shortage of schadenfreude being experienced over The New York Times’ problems. Those with one bone or another to pick with Judy Miller, bloggers who chant the mantra of MSM demise and critics of the war in Iraq are just a few who are reveling in the now-very public internal fighting at the paper.



I say good for The Times.



Not praise for the mess they find themselves in, surely. Miller’s pre-war stories about weapons of mass destruction, the paper’s apology for them, not to mention Miller’s still-curious role in the Valerie Plame case are among the things the Times’ has been suffering from for some time, and will continue to haunt them in the foreseeable future. And while Miller’s attorney, Robert Bennett, may be right about old scores being settled, at least we’re seeing a public airing of it all.

Read full post…