Dean Baquet and Bill Keller have published their latest attempt to explain their disclosure of classified information.
We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of The Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.
But the virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If the freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.
—
Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.
In recent years our papers have brought you a great deal of information the White House never intended for you to know — classified secrets about the questionable intelligence that led the country to war in Iraq, about the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, about the transfer of suspects to countries that are not squeamish about using torture, about eavesdropping without warrants.
As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: “You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America’s name, shouldn’t Americans understand how it is being waged?”
Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department’s efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary’s team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration’s relentlessness against the terrorist threat.
How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?
Sometimes the judgments are easy. Our reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, take great care not to divulge operational intelligence in their news reports, knowing that in this wired age it could be seen and used by insurgents.
Often the judgments are painfully hard. In those cases, we cool our competitive jets and begin an intensive deliberative process.There is a lot I could respond to in the excerpt above and even more in the full editorial, but I will just address the following for now: “Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.” If it were true that the NYT had been doing their job, and bringing their readers unbiased, balanced and comprehensive information to enable them to make intelligent decisions, then I doubt there would have been as great an uproar (and questioning of their motivation) over the most recent disclosures of classified material. Instead, the NYT, and many other mainstream media outlets, have often treated the Bush administration as a greater threat to America than that posed by jihadist terrorists. If the history of the NYT’s coverage of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror was not what it was and if their past coverage of this President had not been what it has been, their latest statement might be more believable.
Update: Blue Crab Boulevard senses nervousness over backlash and provides additional analysis and links, including one to Ann Althouse, who seems to agree with my analysis above by asking of the NYT, “why should we trust you?”
MacRanger has some excellent (and entertaining) analysis including this:
Yawwwn….do these guy’s lawyers know that they are refusing their right to “remain silent”.
Want it both ways. Well guys, if Secretary Snow showed you guys around the program in 2003, then why all the “secret reporting” here in 2006? How then could this be – as you call it – “news”? You’re assertion that Snow “hoped it would appear in print”, is a blatent lie as I know and have talked with someone on that “team”, and you were asked not to devulge it, and you agreed and now – and only now – prior the 2006 midterms and especially when the tide (politically) for Bush as turned to the positive, you publish it.
This wasn’t a “gut wrenching decision”, it was a calculated move – one of many stories which both of your declining newspapers have written over the last few years – that were designed from the ground up to extract political damage on the White House. Nothing more, nothing less.Update II:I really should have included the L.A. Times in the title to this post, since editors of both actually authored the statement, but since this is just the latest in a series of statements we have been covering from Keller at the NYT, I focused my post more narrowly than I probably should have, at least in the title name.
Update III: Sister Toldjah boils the statement down to a one line quetion and a one line answer.
Err … mantis, your mind took a detour to understanding me.
I’m talking linguistics here. When the Bill of Rights was ratified the phrase “The Press” did not refer to newspapers like it does today. I’m hoping you do not think I’m so stupid that I do not know that newspapers existed well before the American Revolution.
I’m complaining about the constant use of the “Freedom of the Press” clause of the First Amendment as if the Constitution granted some sort of special dispensation to journalists.
As for whether or not what the New York Times did violated the law … think about it this way. If I were to get a hold of the NOC list and then hand it to the North Korean or Iranian government, can I be prosecuted?
Yes.
What if I put it on a publicly accessible website?
Yes. Because it is classified information and there are laws against disseminating (in any way) classified information, which is not covered by the First Amendment. As Justice Jackson said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
And if you accept that the New York Times has no more free speech rights than I do, then you have to also accept that when they publish classified information, the First Amendment doesn’t cover them any more than it covers me. And they’ve put themselves in serious legal jeopardy.
Cool?
PS: Not being prosecuted is not exactly proof-positive that one did not commit a crime.
I’m talking linguistics here.
Well, semantics anyway.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified the phrase “The Press” did not refer to newspapers like it does today.
Your not really explaining this well. First you claim that, “the news media (newspapers) at the time of the Bill of Rights ratification was not referred to as “The Press”,” now you claim it did not refer to newspapers “like it does today”. So which is it? Were newspapers part of “the press” or weren’t they?
I’m hoping you do not think I’m so stupid that I do not know that newspapers existed well before the American Revolution.
Well, I’m hoping you’re not that stupid. Apparently not.
I’m complaining about the constant use of the “Freedom of the Press” clause of the First Amendment as if the Constitution granted some sort of special dispensation to journalists.
Well I’m not claiming that. I’m merely claiming that our freedom of the press exists.
As for whether or not what the New York Times did violated the law … think about it this way. If I were to get a hold of the NOC list and then hand it to the North Korean or Iranian government, can I be prosecuted?
That would be a violation of the Espionage Act, which states
with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country
Good luck proving the NYTimes did that.
What if I put it on a publicly accessible website?
Yes. Because it is classified information and there are laws against disseminating (in any way) classified information, which is not covered by the First Amendment. As Justice Jackson said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Well, websites are a bit tricky legally right now, but as far as publishing this information, the prosecution would have to show that it would cause a “grave and irreparable danger” (See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713).
And if you accept that the New York Times has no more free speech rights than I do, then you have to also accept that when they publish classified information, the First Amendment doesn’t cover them any more than it covers me. And they’ve put themselves in serious legal jeopardy.
Well, if your analogy were apt, maybe, but it’s not.
PS: Not being prosecuted is not exactly proof-positive that one did not commit a crime.
I didn’t say it was. I asked why they weren’t being prosecuted if the publishing of this information was illegal.
It is clearly illegal to “broadcast classified material”.
Guess who broadcast it?
Hint: The NY Times.
Repeatedly, mind you.
-=Mike
It is clearly illegal to “broadcast classified material”.
You use quotes as if you are quoting the code or something. Care to tell me where that particular law is located? I can’t seem to find it here. Couldn’t be because you made it up, could it?
Well, semantics anyway.
It’s all greek to me.
First you claim that, “the news media (newspapers) at the time of the Bill of Rights ratification was not referred to as “The Press”,” now you claim it did not refer to newspapers “like it does today”. So which is it? Were newspapers part of “the press” or weren’t they?
Okay, I guess I must have confused you. So, one more time; “the Press” in the First Amendment refers to the printing press – the use of the printing press. An activity. The First Amendment’s “freedom of the Press” clause guarantees the right of American citizens to disseminate speech.
I’m merely claiming that our freedom of the press exists.
Your turn. Define “Press”.
Anyways, I see that the practical effect of your contentions here is that owning a newspaper basically provides any American citizen immunity from any punishment for disclosing classified information so long as he/she publishes it in a newspaper.
So long as the editor/publisher maintains that he/she that his/her actions were not done “with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation,” he/she is protected by the First Amendment.
What the heck was FDR thinking threatening the Chicago Tribune? After all, the Japanese already knew that the Americans were listening in on their communications – what possible harm could come of telling the world that the US had cracked their encryption code?
Well, semantics anyway.
It’s all greek to me.
First you claim that, “the news media (newspapers) at the time of the Bill of Rights ratification was not referred to as “The Press”,” now you claim it did not refer to newspapers “like it does today”. So which is it? Were newspapers part of “the press” or weren’t they?
Okay, I guess I must have confused you. So, one more time; “the Press” in the First Amendment refers to the printing press – the use of the printing press. An activity. The First Amendment’s “freedom of the Press” clause guarantees the right of American citizens to disseminate speech.
I’m merely claiming that our freedom of the press exists.
Your turn. Define “Press”.
Anyways, I see that the practical effect of your contentions here is that owning a newspaper basically provides any American citizen immunity from any punishment for disclosing classified information so long as he/she publishes it in a newspaper.
So long as the editor/publisher maintains that he/she that his/her actions were not done “with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation,” he/she is protected by the First Amendment.
What the heck was FDR thinking threatening the Chicago Tribune? After all, the Japanese already knew that the Americans were listening in on their communications – what possible harm could come of telling the world that the US had cracked their encryption code?
Oh, I see, they were referring to a machine in the First Amendment and not news institutions, or more broadly, the printed word. Well, let’s check and see if you are right.
First let us visit that wonderful tool, the Online Etymology Dictionary:
press (n.) –
“crowd, multitude,” c.1225, from O.Fr. presse (11c.), from L. pressare (see press (v.1)). Sense of “to urge, compel, force” (now mostly in adj. pressing, 1705) is recorded from 1390. Basketball defense so called from 1961. Meaning “machine for squeezing” (e.g. winepress) is recorded from 1362, from M.Fr. presse. Specific sense “machine for printing” is from 1535; extended to publishing houses by 1579 and to publishing generally (in phrases like freedom of the press) c.1680. This gradually shifted c.1800-1820 to “periodical publishing, journalism.” Meaning “journalists collectively” is attested from 1926. Press agent is from 1883; press conference is attested from 1937, though the thing itself dates to at least World War I. Press secretary is recorded from 1959.
So it seems that while “the press” did not refer exclusively to journalistic institutions before 1800, it did refer to “publishing generally” from 1680 or so. Seems much closer to my definition of “the printed word”. But let’s look at how they actually used it. Refer to Hamilton in Federalist 84
I know not by what logic it could be maintained that the declarations in the state constitutions, in favour of the freedom of the press, would be a constitutional impediment to the imposition of duties upon publications by the state legislatures. It cannot certainly be pretended that any degree of duties, however low, would be an abrigement of the liberty of the press. We know that newspapers are taxed in Great-Britain, and yet it is notorious that the press no where enjoys greater liberty than in that country.
Well, we’ve got publications and newspapers, but strangely no mention of the “use of a printing press” from Hamilton. In any case why would “the use of a printing press” require liberty? Liberty is reserved for people, groups, and institutions, not machine processes.
You use quotes as if you are quoting the code or something. Care to tell me where that particular law is located? I can’t seem to find it here. Couldn’t be because you made it up, could it?
Check out (d). Clearly fits.
Well, we’ve got publications and newspapers, but strangely no mention of the “use of a printing press” from Hamilton. In any case why would “the use of a printing press” require liberty? Liberty is reserved for people, groups, and institutions, not machine processes.
Equality before the law is of importance — a self-professed “journalist” has no more protections than I have.
-=Mike
I see you’re determined to misconstrue me …
So, one more time; “the Press” in the First Amendment refers to the printing press – the use of the printing press. An activity.
Was the above so hard for you to comprehend?
Given that the printing press was the most efficient way of mass communication i.e. disseminating speech, at the time, it is obvious that the “freedom of the Press” protects the methods by which speech is transmitted, whether written or spoken.
Are you following me here or do you need diagrams?
Anyways, I note that in your excerpt of Hamilton’s writings it is rather ambiguous whether or not he is referring to the news media when he says “Press”.
But, I’ve got a quote for you as well: this is the speech given by James Madison (primary author of the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution itself, I believe) with regard to the First Amendment and the Alien & Sedition Act.
In the United States the executive magistrates are not held to be infallible, nor the Legislatures to be omnipotent; and both being elective, are both responsible. Is it not natural and necessary, under such different circumstances, that a different degree of freedom in the use of the press should be contemplated?
Is not such an inference favoured by what is observable in Great Britain itself? Notwithstanding the general doctrine of the common law on the subject of the press, and the occasional punishment of those who use it with a freedom offensive to the Government, it is well known that with respect to the responsible members of the Government, where the reasons operating here become applicable there, the freedom exercised by the press and protected by public opinion far exceeds the limits prescribed by the ordinary rules of law.
And in case you didn’t notice, the First Amendment protects activities. Speech, exercising religion, peacably assembling and petitioning the Government for redress are all activities. The use of the press, i.e. broadcasting speech, is an activity.
Whine, moan and groan all you want, the First Amendment grants news institutions no more rights to free speech, written, spoken, broadcast than anybody else.
I see you’re determined to misconstrue me …
Just to correct you.
Was the above so hard for you to comprehend?
I comprehend it fine. It just happens to be wrong.
Given that the printing press was the most efficient way of mass communication i.e. disseminating speech, at the time, it is obvious that the “freedom of the Press” protects the methods by which speech is transmitted, whether written or spoken.
Wrong. The press is distinct from speech; that’s why both freedoms are guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. The press refers to the written word (i.e newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc).
Are you following me here or do you need diagrams?
Yes, draw me an ASCII diagram please.
Anyways, I note that in your excerpt of Hamilton’s writings it is rather ambiguous whether or not he is referring to the news media when he says “Press”.
It’s only ambiguous if you are deliberately misreading it. Here it is again:
We know that newspapers are taxed in Great-Britain, and yet it is notorious that the press no where enjoys greater liberty than in that country.
Ambiguous? I think not.
But, I’ve got a quote for you as well: this is the speech given by James Madison (primary author of the Bill of Rights as well as the Constitution itself, I believe) with regard to the First Amendment and the Alien & Sedition Act.
Well, let’s look at some other parts of that speech:
The freedom of the press under the common law is, in the defences of the Sedition Act, made to consist in an exemption from all previous restraint on printed publications by persons authorized to inspect and prohibit them. It appears to the committee that this idea of the freedom of the press can never be admitted to be the American idea of it; since a law inflicting penalties on printed publications would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them. It would seem a mockery to say that no laws should be passed preventing publications from being made, but that laws might be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.
Ah, printed publications. Sounds like a definition to me. But he’s referring to an activity, right? Here’s another one that makes it very obvious:
The state of the press, therefore, under the common law, cannot, in this point of view, be the standard of its freedom in the United States.
The state of the press. Could he be talking about an activity here? Would “the state of printing” make any sense, or would it make much more sense if he was referring to the state of the press as an institution?
But let’s continue anyway:
And it will not be a breach either of truth or of candour to say, that no persons or presses are in the habit of more unrestrained animadversions on the proceedings and functionaries of the State governments than the persons and presses most zealous in vindicating the act of Congress for punishing similar animadversions on the Government of the United States.
How can an activity have habits? How can an activity be zealous?
Ok, there’s plenty more, and you can look through all the writings and speeches of the founders and find the same is true. Let’s recap. First you claim the phrase “the press” was not used in reference to newspapers and the like at the time the Constitution was written. I have pointed you to etymological evidence that it was. You of course ignore that and continue your assertion that the phrase refers to a machine activity and not the product of that activity or the institutions which disseminate that product. Your only evidence so far to support that point is a quote from Madison you selected because it almost seems to support your point, however a thorough reading of Madison’s remarks makes it clear what he thinks “the press” is. My definition of “the printed word” and more expansively the institutions which disseminate that printed word jives just fine with Madison’s words. The printed word can be “used” with a “freedom offensive to the Government”. In fact I believe that is the problem many have with the NYTimes; it offends the government. I like having a press that can do that. I don’t necessarily trust newspapers, but I trust the government even less (please note that I am talking about the government, not our current President. I didn’t trust the government under Clinton, and I won’t trust it under the next president either).