Why the Times?

Howard Kurtz is a smart reporter, but his article this morning lists all sorts of reasons why conservatives like to go after the New York Times, (and are therefore "piling on" regarding the banking story, though other papers covered the story), which sort of misses the point.

I mean, am I the only one who thinks this is pretty obvious? People are angriest at the Times because the Times went first. They broke the story. At that point the decision was out of the hands of the other papers -- it's just that simple. In fact, as Patterico points out (indeed as the Kurtz story mentions) once the Times posted their story, there really was no decision to be made by the other papers.

Now, as for the Kurtz article itself, here's the problem. He explains that the Times' editor's standard involves needing a reason not to publish, even though there was nothing wrong with the program.

"The main argument they made to me, extensively and at length, besides that the program is valuable and legitimate, was that there are a lot of banks that are very sensitive to public opinion, and if this sees the light of day, they may stop cooperating," Keller said.

He acknowledged, as did the Times article, that there was no clear evidence that the banking program was illegal. But, he said, "there were officials who talked to us who were uncomfortable with the legality of this program, and others who were uncomfortable with the sense that what started as a temporary program had acquired a kind of permanence.

"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."

But then all the arguments he lays out about complaints about the Times are of a political nature: he doesn't quote anyone saying, "I'm angry about this story because in fact there was a cost to not withholding."

Instead he quotes this weak excuse for an argument:

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press, questioned how groundbreaking the Times banking report was. "Wouldn't you think any reasonably smart terrorist is going to know that his financial transactions are being tracked?" she asked.

That's been answered over and over and over. And over. But in Kurtz's piece her statement stands unchallenged.

Comments

[Bryguy]

Uh, more to the point, do you really think they're going to think their finances are being tracked now if they didn't before?

[TC@LeatherPenguin]

If a bench clreaing brawl breaks out during a hockey game, the refs don't throw the book at the second or third guy over the boards, they hammer the guy who went first. It's precisely because they first published the story, and the LA Times and WSJ then followed their lead, that all the anger is aimed at Keller & Co..

[B Dubya]

Remember, folks. The first rule of Operational Security is to keep your mouth shut. The Soviets spent decades sifting though our news organs, looking for clues that could tell them what our capabilities and intentions were. That was a cold war. This one is hot.

[Chicago Station]

"...his article this morning lists all sorts of reasons why conservatives like to go after the New York Times"

It would be more revealing to read an article that lists all sorts of reasons why unconvicted felons like to leak to the New York Times.

[John Sorg]

Don't we all remember how the MSM wrung their hands and wouldn't print the Monica Lewinsky scandal until it broke on Drudge??

Don't we all remember the blatent disregard of Kathleen Willey, et al regarding Clinton's serial sexual misbehavior?

Where was my "right to know" then?

Lastly, as a member of the "public", I demand to know where Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger's homes are. I want photos of their houses to be shown online and their addresses published - in Engish and Arabic.

Why? Because my right to know (because I want to know!!) exceeds any personal security issues they may have.

John Sorg
Indianapolis

[bmovies]

"t would be more revealing to read an article that lists all sorts of reasons why unconvicted felons like to leak to the New York Times."

To undermine the administrations war on terror? Who leaked to the New York Times in the first place? Look for the Carter and/or Clinton appointee (Bush made the hideous mistake of letting many of them keep their jobs after he took office)

[davod]

Hagel just employed a accolyte of Rand Beers. Specter employed one of Leahys people as head of staff for the Judiciary committee.
It is unfortunate that these days it is all politics all the time.