# I pit the short-sighted self serving twits at the New York Times **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359 "2006-06-27T17:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/21 "2006-06-27T18:09:16Z")
I believe [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html) is the original article (registration required). And here is a [letter from the editor](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin) in response. This is not black and white, in my opinion. Newspapers use thier discretion all the time, like when they decline to publish the name of rape accusers. While the papaer did nothing illegal, as far as I can tell, and I don’t think there is any threat to freedom of the press, I amnot sure that there was a legitimate"need to know" in this case, considering that it wasn’t a clandestine White House operation but in fact was operating under the full purview of the Congress. I mean if one person with an agenda wants to expose a program and say, “It might not be legal?” to the reporter, is that enough? ---
**Author:** ![malkavia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malkavia/32/5621_2.png) [@malkavia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/malkavia)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/22 "2006-06-27T18:11:12Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > And what would be your plan to try to preempt terrorist attacks? One that would be in keeping with your political philosophy? Oof, you got me! I mean, well played sir! You exposed me for the average citizen that I am, knowing next to nothing about how to maintain our country’s freedom while still protecting it’s citizens. Fortunately, no one elected me to bear that burden. Personally, I wasn’t aware that your bank transactions were all that personal. I mean, if I go on a crazed spending spree, my bank is on the horn with me to verify that the charges are actually mine. If all of the sudden I’ve got a ginormous amount of debits to “Harry’s WMD Shack, Inc”, then I would assume the bank would do what any concerned citizen would do and maybe report it to the authorities. What I don’t want is the government to have the right to analyze what I buy and try to retro-fit my transactions to _prove_ that I’m an actual terrorist. And on preview, **SteveG1** , thank you for your post. Very well stated. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/23 "2006-06-27T18:12:11Z")
> [@Long Time First Time](#): > > By publishing the article the NYT raises the issue. What is the price we are paying for the current plan to preempt terrorist attacks? It’s an important question and we ought to be discussing it more than we do, IMHO. You are correct. But nobody is willing to put down the partisan knives long enough to do that. And despite their claims of nobility, I think this is exactly what happened with the Times and this story. They truly believe that they are soldiers of light and truth and this was another flaming arrow over the ramparts of the evil empire. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/24 "2006-06-27T18:14:26Z")
> [@Long Time First Time](#): > > That’s the million dollar question, isn’t it? How does this country maintain it’s identy as the one that holds the moral high ground by insisting that EVERYBODY follow the law of the land without becoming a sitting duck for every terrorist out there? > > I suspect everyone has their own answer as to how many intrusions are too many and how safe is safe enough. > > I believe that if we lose our civil liberties and allow torture then we have kissed our soul as a country good-bye and the terrorists have truely already won. > > By publishing the article the NYT raises the issue. What is the price we are paying for the current plan to preempt terrorist attacks? It’s an important question and we ought to be discussing it more than we do, IMHO. Well, following this logic, there shoukld be no concept of keeping anyhting classified for national security purposes. There shold be no closed door sessions for anything, and every meeting the Persident has shold be video-taped and transcripted for immediate broadcast. If that is going to far, where should the laine be drawn? And by whom? You? Me? The press? Or the people we elected and have the responsibility to protect us? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/25 "2006-06-27T18:16:08Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Oh, _Congress_ knew about it! That’s alright then! We can trust Congress! > > **Evil One** , when people say they don’t trust the government, exactly who do you think they’re talking about? Like it or not, Miller, we have a system in place. None of us are privy to the inner workings of that system and we rely on our own ideological prism to analyze and interpret events. I am choosing to take the Bush administrations statements about this program at face value. I am also choosing to believe that the Times is infused with ideological bias and that it played a factor in their decision to publish this story. Some of you would sooner set yourselves on fire than take my position. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/26 "2006-06-27T18:18:17Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > Your point being…? I will admit that it was an easy throwaway line, but not that it was without thought or justification. The publication of the Pentagon Papers was a defining moment in American journalism. It established the right of the press to publish secret information despite governmental objections. Although the litigation did not establish the wisdom of the publication of the secret report, I would submit the actions of the _Times_ were widely regarded as a credit to journalism, winning the _Times_ a Pulitzer Prize for public service. It is clear to me at least that the _Times_ is not willy-nilly publishing every confidential thing they run across. Rather, they are making a journalistic decision as to when to publish secret facts they uncover. The most compelling example of that was their publication of information regarding the [NSA warrantless telephone data collection progam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy) only after keeping it secret for over a year at the government’s request. One important job of the press is to report on maters of public interest and debate. The extent to which we desire law enforcement to have access to personal information, whether it is phone records or financial data, is an important topic of public discussion. The question of whether the importance of the issue as a matter for debate is sufficient to overcome the potential harm the exposure will is something that calls for case by case determination each time. From what I have seen here, the _Times_ has made a strongly defensible journalistic decision that will most likely be proven correct in the fullness of history, like its decision to publish the Pentagon Papers has been. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/27 "2006-06-27T18:18:49Z")
> [@js\_africanus](#): > > Cite? > > In addition, you’re asserting at least two implicit assumptions, first “if Congress knows about a clandesting project, then it’s ethical and should remain secret,” and second “if a law-enforcement policy catches criminals, then it is ethically justified.” Neither of those hold water. How the hell do you ask for a cite on this? If you think his claim that there is “no compelling reason” is false, it falls to you to show that he is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/28 "2006-06-27T18:18:59Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > I amnot sure that there was a legitimate"need to know" in this case, considering that it wasn’t a clandestine White House operation but in fact was operating under the full purview of the Congress. I mean if one person with an agenda wants to expose a program and say, “It might not be legal?” to the reporter, is that enough? It’s enough to kill the program and potentially endanger lives. That’s why I would love to see the government crack down hard on leakers of classified information. Period. Regardless of the ideological justification of the leak. If it was vitally important to find out who broke the law by speaking the name of Valerie Plame, it’s important to find out who exposed this program. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/29 "2006-06-27T18:24:06Z")
> [@malkavia](#): > > Oof, you got me! I mean, well played sir! You exposed me for the average citizen that I am, knowing next to nothing about how to maintain our country’s freedom while still protecting it’s citizens. Fortunately, no one elected me to bear that burden. So you are comfortable with being an armchair philosopher with nothing positive to contribute…secure in the knowledge that you can ridicule those who are trying to protect you while reserving the right to howl like a monkey if they make a mistake. Does that about cover it? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/30 "2006-06-27T18:24:59Z")
So why is the OP pitting the _New York Times_ but not the _Wall Street Journal_, which I understand also ran the story, and was not even asked to withhold it? That said, I’d give the paper a medal rather than a pitting. If the government doesn’t want something published, it oughta be up to them to keep the press from finding out about it. Since they couldn’t do that, can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for them. I just love how everytime this administration gets caught doing something sneaky, it’s always somebody else’s fault. Never an internal problem. Never something they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place (talking about the wiretaps here, not necessarily the money watching deal). Love how the first response is always to question the patriotism of anybody who dares to oppose the powers that be. Here’s a newsflash: We are NOT at war. Congress has not declared war on anybody since WWII. Yes, terrorism is a Bad Thing. I have no problem with killing terrorists before they kill us, but it seems all sense of proportion has been lost here. The continued existence of the United States is not now, has never been, and is never likely to be at stake due to acts of terrorists. A hundred planes could crash into buildings, and it ain’t gonna destroy the country. In my opinion, Shrub has done more damage to freedom than the terrorists ever will. We are less free today than we were on 9/10/01. Not because of the actions of any terrorist, but because of the actions of this administration. The Patriot Act is an abomination. Illegal Wiretaps are unconscionable. Super secret “no fly” lists, with no known criteria for inclusion thereon are not the American Way. You have to watch what you say or post, because you never know when some government drone is going to decide that you probably won’t vote Republican, so you must be a terrorist worthy of going on the “Enemies List”. Kudos to the New York Times. Keep up the good work. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/31 "2006-06-27T18:25:08Z")
How exactly does the reporting of this program invalidate future use of this program? There are terrorists who were and weren’t using phones before the NSA business, and there are terrorists who do and don’t use banks now. The extent and methodology of things being monitored hasn’t been disclosed, so some people/groups are going to continue to be more or less discreet than others. This was always true, so what exactly changes (other than stating in the open what a lot of us probably suspected from a practical POV)? ---
**Author:** ![malkavia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malkavia/32/5621_2.png) [@malkavia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/malkavia)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/32 "2006-06-27T18:25:12Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > If it was vitally important to find out who broke the law by speaking the name of Valerie Plame, it’s important to find out who exposed this program. Finally, we agree. Let’s launch a token investigation where no one takes the fall at once! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/33 "2006-06-27T18:29:13Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Like it or not, Miller, we have a system in place. None of us are privy to the inner workings of that system and we rely on our own ideological prism to analyze and interpret events. Which is why we need the press to publish stories like this: so that we actually have some understanding of what our government is doing, and can act to check it if it is acting in a manner we don’t care for. > [@](#): > > I am choosing to take the Bush administrations statements about this program at face value. I am also choosing to believe that the Times is infused with ideological bias and that it played a factor in their decision to publish this story. > > Some of you would sooner set yourselves on fire than take my position. Yeah, I think self-immolation is probably a smarter choice than taking anything the government has to say at face value. And that’s not a partisan sentiment: I’d feel the same if this program had been leaked under an Al Gore or John Kerry administration. The government, by definition, is not a trustworthy institution. I’m regularly stunned that anyone thinks differently, in this day and age. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/34 "2006-06-27T18:30:00Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > One important job of the press is to report on maters of public interest and debate. The extent to which we desire law enforcement to have access to personal information, whether it is phone records or financial data, is an important topic of public discussion. The question of whether the importance of the issue as a matter for debate is sufficient to overcome the potential harm the exposure will is something that calls for case by case determination each time. You are correct. An intelligent and reasoned debate, free of political taint, is what is needed to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the majority. There will be those on either end of the spectrum who will simultaneously complain that we are going too far and not far enough, but we need to let pragmatism rather than ideology rule the day. And given that statement, I think if the program was working…and it was legal…the times should have enjoyed a steaming cup of STFU and let it continue. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/35 "2006-06-27T18:32:49Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Here’s a newsflash: We are NOT at war. Another voice for the porcine chorus. ---
**Author:** ![Hamadryad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6de8d8/32.png) [@Hamadryad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamadryad)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/36 "2006-06-27T18:31:59Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I am choosing to take the Bush administrations statements about this program at face value. I am also choosing to believe that the Times is infused with ideological bias and that it played a factor in their decision to publish this story. > > Some of you would sooner set yourselves on fire than take my position. The thing is, people who have chosen to take the Bush administration’s statements at face value thus far have found themselves regretting their decision. It’s a “boy who cried ‘wolf’” situation. “No, really - this time we’re **really** telling you everything you need to know. This time, we _totally promise_.” This administration has fucked so many issues in so many positions, you can’t blame us for wincing every time he approaches us from behind. And he started off with a lousy $300 reach-around. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/37 "2006-06-27T18:36:41Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > So why is the OP pitting the _New York Times_ but not the _Wall Street Journal_, which I understand also ran the story, and was not even asked to withhold it? The NYT was the primary investigative source for the story, from what I understand. Once it became clear that the story was going forward, the spirit of competition came forward. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/38 "2006-06-27T18:41:43Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Another voice for the porcine chorus. Blow me, fuckwad. If you want to engage on the merits, I’m here for ya. If all you want to do is get personal, I can do that, too. Stick to the topic at hand, or go back to diddling little boys. All the same to me. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/39 "2006-06-27T18:51:08Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > And given that statement, I think if the program was working…and it was legal…the times should have enjoyed a steaming cup of STFU and let it continue. But, the major question you leave yourself open to is **IF** the program was legal and effective. The article itself (which I assume you have read) makes clear that the legality of the program is in a “gray area” and that a significant source of the information disclosed was officials with reservations about the program. As Bill Keller, executive editor of the _Times_ [explained](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?pagewanted=all): > [@](#): > > We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/40 "2006-06-27T18:51:21Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Steve, I say the following sincerely and free of sarcasm. > > Your post was thoughtful and relevant. I appreciate your effort in putting it together. I thank you for the kind words. > [@Evil One](#): > > I think the difference today is the fact that a lot of the political opponents of the president view the fact that we are in a war with internal quotation marks above the word “war”. They can’t bring themselves to face the fact that we are trying to kill people before they kill us. If they did face that reality, it would pull them out of their ideological comfort zone. Maybe, but then this administration has made a “career” of framing every little thing in terms of a War On Terror. Even the slightest verbal criticisms are condemned as “undermining the effort” or as “endangering the troops”. It is time to stop. The administration has done too many things in a War on terror,which had nothing to do with it, made things even worse, or had no effect at all. > [@Evil One](#): > > I now make some of you uncomfortable by involking 9/11. Some people understood the reality of fighting terrorism before 9/11. For others, 9/11 was the 2X4 to the head that they needed. And today, others who are a bit more stubborn are going to require another attack to hit them between the eyes before they begin pulling the plow in the same direction as the rest of us. That is another thing. This administration invokes 9/11 as if it is some automatic “god mode” to do whatever they please, and hide it under a blanket of secrecy. no matter what the issue is, it always gets twisted into “9/11 changed everything”. It is time for that to stop too. The Taliban is regaining strength in Afghanistan. Bin Laden is still out there somewhere. We have turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground. Even Cheney has finally said things will go to hell no matter what we do. [http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=696](http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=696) > [@Calitics](#): > > Crooks & Liars has video of KGO’s late-night talk show host Bernie Ward destroying Texas Republican radio host Chris Baker on MSNBC. The two were there to discuss the New York Times’ reporting of the Bush Administrations’ recent financial dragnetting. > > Baker: Time of War! New York Times Treasonous! Bush Haters! > Ward: Should the government control what a newspaper prints? > Baker: Time of War! New York Times Treasonous! Bush Haters! > Ward: Answer the question. Should the government control what a newspaper prints? > [Repeat until Baker loses his mind, calls Ward names, and storms off because his Rove-approved talking points aren’t working.] > … > Here is what Bernie did. He asked a specific question that needed a specific answer. And he did not back down. > > Here is the link to the video… [http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-Smackdown-MSNBC.wmv](http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bernie-Sanders-Smackdown-MSNBC.wmv) > [@crooksandliars](#): > > Bernie Ward’s big question was Who gets to decide what should be reported. > Ward: You don’t have a mouth to put it in. You just said you want the government to determine what’s national security… > … > Ward: …he hasn’t answered the question, which is real simple. Who determines what a newspaper publishes, the First Amendment or the government? The bottom line is, we know more now about what the government is doing to us without a court, without a warrant, without a subpoena, than we’ve known because of Congress. And the American people ought to be very concerned about their Fourth Amendment rights, and whether they’re being protected. And Chris, and others like him would like the government to be the one that says, “Okay, you can publish this, but you can’t publish that.” Do I have to remind everybody about the Pentagon Papers? Side comment to John Mace… I’ve been hearing the “give him a little slack” too, about Bush. My question is, just how much rope do we give him? He’s had 6-7 years of slack and benefit of the doubt. Enough is enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=3)