A beginners Civics lesson for Righties from the New York Times
- From: Voter <voter1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:57:22 GMT
From BIll Keller's letter to readers about the banking records story:
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.
Keller responds to conservative critics claiming the NYT has blown a big
secret ("I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much
attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and
the Internet.") and returns to the intent of the founders, who enshrined
the freedom of the press within the Constitution ("They rejected the idea
that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or
to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish").
The full text of Keller's letter is printed after the jump.
Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report
The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times,
has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times's publication
of information about the government's examination of international banking
records:
"I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands,
but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking
records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very
seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish
that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers
and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's
anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's
the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by
yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers
who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing
such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the
information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the
lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of
terror.
It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to
the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street
Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that
also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and
his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an
aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of
power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They
rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the
President at his word, or to surrender to the government important
decisions about what to publish.
The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The
responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves
national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've
only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most
agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.
The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in
such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line,
and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to
the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have
argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian
violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving
comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be
entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know
the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected
officials. Our default position -- our job -- is to publish information if
we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have
generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough.
After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs
invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what
we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times
and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being
skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. 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.
Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of
elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong
disagreements.
Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret
anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and
without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support
extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but
some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the
Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions
and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the
press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these
programs so that the public can have an informed view of them."
http://tinyurl.com/rachf
.
- Prev by Date: Wattenberg: Vietnam is not Iraq...
- Next by Date: Kofi Annan Wants Your Shooters...
- Previous by thread: Wattenberg: Vietnam is not Iraq...
- Next by thread: Kofi Annan Wants Your Shooters...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
