NY Times DELAYED the "Bush-NSA spying on all Americans" story until AFTER the 2004 election....

Far, far, far from being a "liberal-democrat" newspaper, the New York Times, owned by the Arthur Sulzberger family, is wholly and completely dedicated to the proposition of the Bush-Cheney government being UNACCOUNTABLE to either American (much less international) laws, nor to the American people.


NYT Delayed Publication Of NSA Spying Story Before 2004 Election
Byron Calame
Sunday August 13, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/13/nyt-delayed-publ_e_27151.html


On December 16, 2005, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had been eavesdropping on telephone calls without a warrant in an in-depth investigative report by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. Controversially, it was also revealed that the NYT had "delayed publication for a year." Questions arose as to whether the NYT had had evidence of the program prior to the 2004 election and had kept mum. Today, NYT Public Editor Barney Calame has the definitive answer:

"I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election."
Calame traces the language of the delay from "a year" to "more than a year" in subsequent references made in print and by executive editor Bill Keller. Calame writes that his attention was caught by Keller's "Talk to the Newsroom" web-only column in April wherein he was challenged for holding the story and thus influencing the outcome of the election — and he did not correct the timing.

Keller told Calame that drafts of the article had been around for "weeks" before the election, and that "the climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election." WOW. Keller dismisses this as "old business" to Calame; I'd say this is a fairly new and significant bombshell. (One which will, at least, momentarily shut up Peter King, Melanie Morgan, and the rest of the conservative Times bashers.)

Keller told Calame that his claim of a year-old story — missing a crucial month — was "inelegant wording" and claimed that "I don't know what was in my head at the time." Again, WOW. In the Calame article Keller cops to deliberating about publication in the weeks leading up to the election, having a "climactic discussion" on the eve of the election, and weighing the "fairness" of publishing the story just before the election without giving the administration a chance to respond. And now he can't remember what he was thinking? Calame agrees that it wouldn't have been "fair" to spring it on the Republicans; well golly gee whiz, I'm sure the millions of voters who might have liked to know this will totally agree.

(One more wow: Keller says that they initially held the story before the election because the administration had assured them that "everyone involved was satisfied with the program's legality." Gee, the administration making the claim that everything's hunky-dory leading up to an election. Why shouldn't the Times have taken that on faith? Oh, and what was that about fairness? Riiiiight. )

This is a big deal. Newspapers, magazines and, yes, blogs make decisions about what to publish and emphasize and draw attention to every day. But there are three big issues here: (1) The fact that the New York Times held back an explosive, important and possibly decisive revelation prior to the 2004 election; (2) The fact that the New York Times claimed that the story did not, in fact, date from prior to the 2004 election; and (3) The fact that executive editor Bill Keller, who ultimately made the call on whether to run or hold the piece, and who greelit the "delayed for a year" wording in the Dec. 16th article and was cagey about the timing thereafter, now claims to be fuzzy on why, exactly, he might have used inaccurate and misleading language.

The blogs are going to be on fire with this one, on both sides. In other news, that sound you hear is John Kerry banging his head against a wall.