I doubt whether this will ever be a front-page story, particularly in the New York Times.THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.
For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.
I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.
Stern lectures for the logically-challenged. Others have opinions, I have convictions.
Monday, January 02, 2006
NYT Lowers the Cone of Silence
It seems that when it comes to keeping secrets and stonewalling, the New York Times makes the White House look like CONTROL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment