[Calame's] characterization of the feelings that led him
astray in the first place are a striking admission of his
own biases.
Oops, Never Mind!
Power Line
You've probably already heard that Byron Calame, the New York Times's Public Editor, recanted this morning on the paper's exposure of the SWIFT terrorist money tracking program. Shortly after the paper leaked the SWIFT program's existence, Calame wrote a column backing the paper's position. Now he says that the Times should not have exposed the SWIFT program.
Given the considerations Calame now cites--the program is legal, and there is no evidence that anyone's private data were compromised in any way--it's hard to understand why he supported the paper's publication of the leak in the first place. Here is Calame's own, self-revealing explanation:
<<< 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. >>>
I was struck by Calame's reference to the administration's "vicious criticism" of the Times. Not having any recollection of any such "vicious criticism," I searched the paper's archives to find out what Calame had in mind. There was only one article that could have included "vicious crititicism" between the date when the Times published the leak and the date when Calame defended the publication. Here it is.
select.nytimes.com
The article is titled, "Bush Condemns Report on Sifting Of Bank Records." Here are all of the quotes by administration sources that Calame could have characterized as "vicious":
<<< "Congress was briefed," Mr. Bush said. "And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."
"Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs," the vice president said, adding that the program provides "valuable intelligence" and has been "successful in helping break up terrorist plots."
"Traditionally in this country in a time of war, members of the press have acknowledged that the commander in chief, in the exercise of his powers, sometimes has to do things secretly in order to protect the public," Mr. [Tony] Snow said. ''This is a highly unusual departure."
"If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money,'' the president said. ''And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror." >>>
This is what Byron Calame considers "vicious criticism of the Times"? That characterization is, frankly, absurd, especially since Calame now admits that what the administration said was true. If this is really Calame's idea of "vicious criticism," apparently he hasn't been reading his own paper's editorials on President Bush. And if Calame really thinks the Times is an "underdog," he is seriously out of touch.
It's good that Calame had the honesty to reverse his original misjudgment. But his characterization of the feelings that led him astray in the first place are a striking admission of his own biases.
powerlineblog.com
nytimes.com |
