Tuesday, January 3, 2006
NY Times 'Stonewalling' on NSA Leak
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.
"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," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.
In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.
But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "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," he lamented.
Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."
He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.
He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.
"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," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.
In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.
But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "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," he lamented.
Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."
He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.
He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."
