US govt. condemns press for disclosures

After the New York Times revealed on June 23 that the US had secretly monitored millions of international bank transfers without court approval since 2001, the articles prompted White House denunciations and the passage of a House resolution that condemned the disclosures. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," said President Bush. "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." Vice President Dick Cheney tightened the screws: "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 White House press secretary, former Fox News reporter Tony Snow, raised the ante, warning journalists "to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live." As the message percolated through Republican ranks it became more threatening. "Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything," fulminated New York congressman Peter King, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee. "And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people." King demanded that the Times be prosecuted. Pat Roberts, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wondered if the press–the Times story was followed up by the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal–had compromised national security. Finally, Senator Jim Bunning told Kentucky's Courier-Journal, "In my opinion that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason." This was red meat to conservative bloggers and broadcast pundits. "Sometimes you have to wonder if the New York Times is on the al-Qaida payroll," pondered anklebitingpundits.com. Even given the possibility that Republicans are pandering to their conservative base in a volatile election year, a familiar pattern quickly emerged. "Somebody's calling the shots," says Lucy Dalgleish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "If I had to make a guess, it's coming straight out of Karl Rove. It's coordinated very well. It's targeted. It has a surgical feel to it. That's Rove." Admittedly, the media often seemed timorous after Bush launched his war on terror. The New York Times disgraced itself when reporter Judith Miller's stories gave credence to the White House contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nor did they rush the NSA domestic surveillance story into print. "Far from being reckless, they were too conservative," says Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. "They sat on that story for a year when most experts view the NSA surveillance program as a clear, well-defined crime." Turley, who recently testified before the House Intelligence Committee on whether Congress should pass more repressive laws to curb the press, believes the White House wants to intimidate journalists. "This is a president who relishes the idea of absolute authority. And a free press constantly reminds him he is not an absolute ruler. The media is the ultimate pebble in the president's shoe. "Now [Bush has] turned to Congress and asked, 'Who will rid me of this meddlesome press?'" A House resolution declaring that the reports had "placed the lives of Americans in danger" was approved 227 to 183 on June 29, supported by most Republicans. "The administration of President George W. Bush and some members of Congress are threatening America's bedrock values of free speech and free press with their attempts to demonize newspapers for fulfilling their constitutional role in our democratic society," the American Society of Newspaper Editors said in a statement. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) said the House had "entered dangerous territory" with its resolution. "This measure was passed without congressional investigation and without a moment of hearings," said SPJ's president, David Carlson. "There's a thin line between official government condemnation of press coverage and violating constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press." Top editors from the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times defended their decisions to publish government secrets in an op-ed piece that ran on July 1 in both newspapers. Dean Baquet, Los Angeles Times editor, and Bill Keller, New York Times executive editor wrote that judging whether to report sensitive information is a deliberate and intensive process, but that they have an obligation to inform. "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," they wrote. The op-ed piece appeared one day after the Wall Street Journal, which also reported about the financial tracking program, accused the New York Times of not being committed to "winning the war on terror, but obstructing it." The joint Keller-Baquet editorial asserted that the banking articles "did not dwell on the operational or technical aspects of the program, but on its sweep, the questions about its legal basis and the issues of oversight. "We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices–to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government," they wrote.