Posted by Curt on 22 October, 2006 at 7:02 pm. Be the first to comment!

So let me get this straight. The New York Times writes an article which outed a hugely successful, and secret program, that tracked the finances of terrorists while saying it’s in the publics interest.

But now the editor of the Times, Byron Calame, has decided that maybe it was a mistake:

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

[…]I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken.

[…]The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

So that’s it? All better now? Not on your life bud. The Times has become the paper of choice for our enemy, and this should shame the paper.

But the best line in this whole article is the part when Byron blames it all on Bush:

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

At least they admit that their hatred for Bush sways their decision making process at the paper. We have all known this fact for sometime but now, finally, they admit it. Should we forgive him?

I vote no. The editor of the paper overlooked obvious facts all because he was a little pissed off at Bush, and he should be held accountable.

But then if we held all the papers accountable for their bias against Bush and the Republicans we wouldn’t have any newspapers left…..

I gotta tell you though, the first thought that popped into my head when I read this non-apology was the scene where Gilda Radners “Emily Litella” apologizes to Jane Curtin….well sort of:

Byron is promising to do a better job all right, as long as the Bush administration is nice to him…..

What a crock.

Other’s Blogging:


The first thought that popped into my head when I read this non-apology was the scene where Gilda Radners “Emily Litella” apologizes to Jane Curtin….well sort of:

>