NationStates Jolt Archive

The New York Times Editor Byron Calame has "apologized" for his papers reporting of the Bush Administration's Bank Data Surveillance Program. This is a complete reversal from an article he previously wrote where he vigourously defended the decision.

It took him months to admit this, and it seems during those 3 months he searched in vain for an abuse of personal banking data but came up empty handed. So he prints the story believeing there could be abuses, but had no proof and then stonewalls the issue while he desperately searches for abuses that could back him up. Well at least he came clean. Something tells me however that he and his paper will continue with their journalistic hubris.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?ex=1319169600&en=53abf343d208208c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)



Banking Data: A Mea Culpa

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)

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.

The last paragraph shows his lingering journalistic hubris. Any criticism he received was warranted because security officials begged him not to run the story. None of the criticism he received was "vicious". "Vicious" is what is written about the administration in the paper's editorial pages. He did not backpedal until a public outcry made him rethink his decision and as the public editior of the biggest newspaper in the country he is expected to be able to evaluate his papers decision objectively and not grow defensive and draw lines in the sand.

Nice of him to admit he was wrong all along but a resignation is in order. Why this wasn't front page news is typical of the NYT where they bury their "corrections" and "apologies".

Edit

Just want to sum things up here real quick:

1) No personal private data was misused
2) The program is not illegal

Both pointed out by the editor himself.

snip

Nice of him to admit he was wrong all along but a resignation is in order. Why this wasn't front page news is typical of the NYT where they bury their "corrections" and "apologies".

Um show me one major news paper that puts their corrections and apologies on the front page. Seems like rather useless criticism, if that is SOP of all papers.

They prefer to put their apologies and corrections in a nice FINE print.

No one likes to admit when they're wrong.

I personally am shocked ... shocked, I tell you, that a reputable newspaper would print such things. :rolleyes:

I personally am shocked ... shocked, I tell you, that a reputable newspaper would print such things. :rolleyes:
No newspaper is immune from the plague that compels them to print the most asinine shit they can find. It's called "sensationalism" and it's sweeping the nation!

Um show me one major news paper that puts their corrections and apologies on the front page. Seems like rather useless criticism, if that is SOP of all papers.


For one, this was a major story and controversy. And second, the admission itself was buried within an otherwise unrelated story.

For one, this was a major story and controversy. And second, the admission itself was buried within an otherwise unrelated story.

The unrelated story I can understand but what does its controversy have to do with where it is placed? it IS a correction or apology seems like a completely reasonable thing to place it in the section dedicated to that.

Edit: But as a public editor does he have the power to decide where to run it?

Soooo... What's a public editor? Does the readers representative have the authority to apologize on behalf of the newspaper?

Byron Calame is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly on the Sunday Op-Ed pages.

Doesn't look like it, does it?

You need to learn the difference between the Editor in Chief and the Public Editor, better known as the ombudsman.

Bill Keller is the Editor in Chief, and is the man who made the call to run the story, and he has made no such statement as the one above.

Byron Calame is the Public Editor, the person to whom people complain, and who either defends or rips the paper. He has no decision-making ability in what runs in the paper. What he was apologizing for was for his defense of the paper when they ran the story. That's his prerogative. I happen to think his original defense was the right one.

But the difference in the two positions is an important one. Calame is not speaking for the editors at large on this--he's speaking from his position as watchdog.

Am I the only one to think that a lack of appropriate oversight WAS a major issue and a perfectly good reason to bring the program to public attention, or am I just being goofy again?

You need to learn the difference between the Editor in Chief and the Public Editor, better known as the ombudsman.

Bill Keller is the Editor in Chief, and is the man who made the call to run the story, and he has made no such statement as the one above.

Byron Calame is the Public Editor, the person to whom people complain, and who either defends or rips the paper. He has no decision-making ability in what runs in the paper. What he was apologizing for was for his defense of the paper when they ran the story. That's his prerogative. I happen to think his original defense was the right one.

But the difference in the two positions is an important one. Calame is not speaking for the editors at large on this--he's speaking from his position as watchdog.

I know he was the ombudsman. Big deal. He was wrong in his defense and the paper was wrong in its decision. that is the topic here.

I know he was the ombudsman. Big deal. He was wrong in his defense and the paper was wrong in its decision. that is the topic here.

One person has apparently changed his opinion. One person who has no authority or say in the actions of the paper.

Many people, including myself and presumably the editor in chief of the NYT think it was the right thing to do.

I know he was the ombudsman. Big deal. He was wrong in his defense and the paper was wrong in its decision. that is the topic here.

Not quite. You're trying to frame this as though the paper itself has said that it was the wrong decision and is apologizing for it, when that's not the case. The Public Editor is taking that position, but he's apparently taking it alone.

But now I have to wonder if the way you worded the original post wasn't deliberate. I figured you just might not have known the difference, and so was going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Was it your purpose to muddy the waters?

I know he was the ombudsman. Big deal. He was wrong in his defense and the paper was wrong in its decision. that is the topic here.
You knew? Yet you say:
Any criticism he received was warranted because security officials begged him not to run the story.
He wasn't responsible for running the story now, was he?

And if you knew, then you know the answer to your question about why this wasn't front page news, don't you?

And it is a big deal. The newspaper hasn't apologised - just him as a private person.

One person has apparently changed his opinion. One person who has no authority or say in the actions of the paper.

Many people, including myself and presumably the editor in chief of the NYT think it was the right thing to do.

It is legal. There have been no abuses of a person's banking data.

We have yet to see however if the publicity will negatively effect the tracking of terrorist funding. That will take some time.

Was it your purpose to muddy the waters?

That's my purpose. I'm here to muddy the waters. :)

Am I the only one to think that a lack of appropriate oversight WAS a major issue and a perfectly good reason to bring the program to public attention, or am I just being goofy again?

It was to me, but then again, I'm a big fan of oversight. I'm a firm believer in the adage that power that can be abused, will be abused.

It is legal. There have been no abuses of a person's banking data.

I don't know why but the thought of the government saying "we're not going to do anything wrong, trust us" does not seem to me to abdicate the role of the media to inform the public of the actions of the government.

That's my purpose. I'm here to muddy the waters. :)
That's not mud you're stirring in there and you know it. ;)

You knew? Yet you say:

He wasn't responsible for running the story now, was he?

And if you knew, then you know the answer to your question about why this wasn't front page news, don't you?

And it is a big deal. The newspaper hasn't apologised - just him as a private person.


you seem to think he doesn't share the opinions and views of the other editors working for the New York Times. He originally published a strident defense of his papers actions.

And it should have been front page news, not simply buried in his column.

But whatever, I am done here. You can shrug off the papers misbehavior if you want. fact is, they were wrong and at least this guy is starting to realize it.

I don't know why but the thought of the government saying "we're not going to do anything wrong, trust us" does not seem to me to abdicate the role of the media to inform the public of the actions of the government.

Congress and the Intelligence Committee should know about it. The "public", which includes the financers of terrorism, does not need to know the ins and outs of our National Security Programs. I kind of want those to be secret. ;)

you seem to think he doesn't share the opinions and views of the other editors working for the New York Times.

You have no evidence to support the claim that others share his views. The editing staff at the NYT appears not to

He originally published a strident defense of his papers actions.

And he changed his mind. That is no indication that this is reflective of anyone else other than him.

And it should have been front page news, not simply buried in his column.

Um...he writes a column. The stuff he writes therefore ends up in his column. What, exactly, should be the front page news here? "Man Changed Opinion About Something" hardly seems like top copy to me. He's a columnist, he wrote his column.

fact is, they were wrong.

Oh "it's a fact" now is it? Funny how an opinion can become fact just like that.

Congress and the Intelligence Committee should know about it. The "public", which includes the financers of terrorism, does not need to know the ins and outs of our National Security Programs. I kind of want those to be secret. ;)

Because we can trust congress and the goverment, a core conservative value that is.

Congress and the Intelligence Committee should know about it. The "public", which includes the financers of terrorism, does not need to know the ins and outs of our National Security Programs. I kind of want those to be secret. ;)

and I kinda want oversight into the process. And I kinda want to know when there isn't any.

And I kinda want to know the actions of my elected officials so that when the poll time comes around, I can take that knowledge and decide whether it's time to throw the bums out or not.

you seem to think he doesn't share the opinions and views of the other editors working for the New York Times. He originally published a strident defense of his papers actions.

And it should have been front page news, not simply buried in his column.

But whatever, I am done here. You can shrug off the papers misbehavior if you want. fact is, they were wrong and at least this guy is starting to realize it.

So you mischaracterize a story and when it turns out that the rest of us realize it and call you out, you walk away and say "I am done here?"

That's not mud you're stirring in there and you know it. ;)

Well, it looks like mud. :)

you seem to think he doesn't share the opinions and views of the other editors working for the New York Times. He originally published a strident defense of his papers actions.
So? I'm sure many others share their views as well, and I'm sure there are those who oppose them. Now, is his opinion now representative for the other editors at the NYT? We don't know, so this isn't relevant for the newspaper as a whole.


And it should have been front page news, not simply buried in his column.
Why? It's his private opinion. Those who disagreed with him and has complained to him know where to look.


But whatever, I am done here. You can shrug off the papers misbehavior if you want. fact is, they were wrong and at least this guy is starting to realize it.
I'm not convinced, and he's not exactly bending over backwards or crawling in the mud either:
While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

That's not mud you're stirring in there and you know it. ;)
Congrats on 10,000 posts :)

So you mischaracterize a story and when it turns out that the rest of us realize it and call you out, you walk away and say "I am done here?"

He's right about one thing Nazz, the fact that a NYT employee changed his mind from an opinion he once held is big news and deserves to be on the front page.

Which is why tomorrow I expect to see the headline "mail room clerk decides at last minute to get chinese for lunch instead of a bite at the pizza place on the corner."

After all, the american public NEEDS TO KNOW!

Congrats on 10,000 posts :)
Thanks. It's sweeter the second time around. ;)

So you mischaracterize a story and when it turns out that the rest of us realize it and call you out, you walk away and say "I am done here?"

call me out? :confused:

No, I have put the information out and now I will let the typical responses of denial and apologia for the NYT from people like yourself flow like the Nile (or is that denial?).

their circulation is dropping so badly because of their antics, soon it will only be people like you and most of the others in this very thread who are left reading the paper.

call me out? :confused:

No, I have put the information out and now I will let the typical responses of denial and apologia for the NYT from people like yourself flow like the Nile (or is that denial?).

their circulation is dropping so badly because of their antics, soon it will only be people like you and most of the others in this very thread who are left reading the paper.

What a fascinating little world you must live in, so bereft of reality and fact.

What a fascinating little world you must live in, so bereft of reality and fact.

bereft of reality and fact as long as I read papers such as the NYT.


you got some foam on your moth, might want to take care of that. I realize reports like this upset your secure little left wing utopia, but it is good for you once in a while. precitable little Nazz.

The job of the media is to tell the citizens what is happening in the world, including what their government is up to.

There is no basis whatsoever for anything "secret" here. It's banking surveillance - it's not like terrorists can realistically get around using the banks. And if they could, they would already be doing so.

bereft of reality and fact as long as I read papers such as the NYT.

you got some foam on your moth, might want to take care of that. I realize reports like this upset your secure little left wing utopia, but it is good for you once in a while. precitable little Nazz.

What "report"? You mean his opinion as expressed in his column, right?

As for the denial and apology you claim to see: It's more an attack on your spin, your misrepresentation. The topic of whether or not the NYT was right in publishing what they did so long ago has hardly been touched upon.

Hmmm? *looks at the calendar*

Ahh the elections are getting close.

Hmmm? *looks at the calendar*

Ahh the elections are getting close.

is he running? since this isn't a presidential Election and the original NYT article slams President Bush for authorising it...


I can't see how an appology by the editor will affect that outcome...

bereft of reality and fact as long as I read papers such as the NYT.


you got some foam on your moth, might want to take care of that. I realize reports like this upset your secure little left wing utopia, but it is good for you once in a while. precitable little Nazz.

When you learn to write, I'll pay attention to you. Until then...

is he running? since this isn't a presidential Election and the original NYT article slams President Bush for authorising it...


I can't see how an appology by the editor will affect that outcome...

Wasn't talking about the article. Just the fact that people will dig up any kind of crap before an election.

Never mind the fact he has a theme going if you consider the BBC thread......

Wasn't talking about the article. Just the fact that people will dig up any kind of crap before an election.

Never mind the fact he has a theme going if you consider the BBC thread......You can smell the desperation from his side, that's for sure.

Hmmm? *looks at the calendar*

Ahh the elections are getting close.

Wasn't talking about the article. Just the fact that people will dig up any kind of crap before an election.

Never mind the fact he has a theme going if you consider the BBC thread......

You can smell the desperation from his side, that's for sure.
It's two weeks before, time for the full court press. It's actually the time I've been dreading. I think that the Rove team has decided that any real running prior to the last two weeks is wasted and only runs out the shrill guns in the last two weeks so that any crazy ass claim doesn't have time to be dissassembled or refuted in any meaningful manner. He can spend two weeks going "BOOO! They're gonna get ya and the Dems are gonna hand you over on a platter!" They can take all the legitimate criticisms and dismiss them as old, or paint the opposition as 'one note' (despite the fact that the only real note they got is "Be afraid", oh, and gays want to be treated like citizens...). I'd be more dismissive about this but dammit, it's been working.

You could almost tell it was two weeks before the election just signing onto General and seeing the threads that where being started.

I know he was the ombudsman. Big deal. He was wrong in his defense and the paper was wrong in its decision. that is the topic here.

No, your tagline is "NY TIMES admits they were wrong." Does he represent the ownership or writers of the paper? NO! Therefor he is not in a position to make such an admission. This is even worse than your stupid smear on the BBC with the reichstag of all rags as your evidence. That is what you made the topic so don't try and change it midstream. Soon you'll be telling me that "stay the course" was never the Bush agenda. Like LEADER like follower.

Wasn't talking about the article. Just the fact that people will dig up any kind of crap before an election.

Never mind the fact he has a theme going if you consider the BBC thread......which still leads to the question... why?

the BBC has no bearing on voter's minds, and this doesn't support anyone. The only thing this damages is the NYT... if at all.

NYT is biased? DUH!

BBC Biased? DUH!

that's like posting something here that says Fox News is Biased. :rolleyes:

bereft of reality and fact as long as I read papers such as the NYT.


you got some foam on your moth, might want to take care of that. I realize reports like this upset your secure little left wing utopia, but it is good for you once in a while. precitable little Nazz.

While overall newpaper readeship trends are down by 1.8% this has been replaced by online readership. The only paper posting gains is the, you guessed it NY TIMES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201457.html

I have more recent statistics for overall readership if you'd like. But their base is not going down, it's actually going up by a total of 40% if you count both traditional print media and online media. NEXT!!!!! I own you Daemonocracy and you are my little punk bitch baby boy. Bring some more of your bullshit and I'll refute you with research again. You ignore that this is not the editor in cheif and you misrepresented the story. Then I refute the BS you try to use to prove your point while ignoring all rational arguments destroying you. I love your persistence though. Now get on your knees like daddy tells you. Those who give respect and debate honestly are respected by me. Those who twist, turn, lie, and spin are not. Guess where you fall?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/media_newspapers_readership_dcsb

While overall newpaper readeship trends are down by 1.8% this has been replaced by online readership. The only paper posting gains is the, you guessed it NY TIMES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201457.html

I have more recent statistics for overall readership if you'd like. But their base is not going down, it's actually going up by a total of 40% if you count both traditional print media and online media. NEXT!!!!! I own you Daemonocracy and you are my little punk bitch baby boy. Bring some more of your bullshit and I'll refute you with research again. You ignore that this is not the editor in cheif and you misrepresented the story. Then I refute the BS you try to use to prove your point while ignoring all rational arguments destroying you. I love your persistence though. Now get on your knees like daddy tells you. Those who give respect and debate honestly are respected by me. Those who twist, turn, lie, and spin are not. Guess where you fall?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/media_newspapers_readership_dcsb
Easy slugger...I'm not saying you're not right or that he didn't have a serious correction coming-I'm not even saying that a little victory dancing isn't in order, but excessive endzone demonstrations do get a little tacky no matter how well done the touchdown.

You're right in the meat and potatoes part of the post, don't make it embarrassing to agree with you.

If I had this idiot's ear, I'd put it to good use:

"Thanks a pantload for the "apology," you left-wing twit. Now that you've arrogated to yourself the decision to expose a vital intelligence operation during wartime--a decision that was never yours to make, a decision nobody elected you to make--aided the enemy, and done irreversible damage to national security, you think you can get rid of that guilty conscience by saying "Oops, my bad."

Well, UBL, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and My-Moo-Cow A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket aren't interested in your phony apology, and neither is anyone else.

If you really want to apologize, resign and leave the country. Otherwise, STFU."

If I had this idiot's ear, I'd put it to good use:

"Thanks a pantload for the "apology," you left-wing twit. Now that you've arrogated to yourself the decision to expose a vital intelligence operation during wartime--a decision that was never yours to make, a decision nobody elected you to make--aided the enemy, and done irreversible damage to national security, you think you can get rid of that guilty conscience by saying "Oops, my bad."

Well, UBL, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and My-Moo-Cow A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket aren't interested in your phony apology, and neither is anyone else.

If you really want to apologize, resign and leave the country. Otherwise, STFU."Here's a reply--the fact that this kind of surveillance could be done wasn't secret to begin with. Every dumbass who deals in international finance knows that SWIFT automatically tracks transactions over a certain level, and in this day when the US government is granting itself undemocratic powers on what seems to be a daily basis, it's the job of the press to make sure that they're held accountable for all their actions. If you don't like it, find a country that doesn't have a Constitutional amendment protecting the freedom of the press.

which still leads to the question... why?

the BBC has no bearing on voter's minds, and this doesn't support anyone. The only thing this damages is the NYT... if at all.

NYT is biased? DUH!

BBC Biased? DUH!

that's like posting something here that says Fox News is Biased. :rolleyes:

Ahh but the ebil liberal bias in the media plays on the cons minds all the time.

Make you a deal. You let the "ebil lib press" talk go and I am sure we can get people to lay off your lovey foxynews!

:rolleyes:

If you really want to apologize, resign and leave the country. Otherwise, STFU."

I do love a cons interpretation of the Constitution. :rolleyes:

I do love a cons interpretation of the Constitution. :rolleyes:

They think it's a MadLibs.

Am I the only one to think that a lack of appropriate oversight WAS a major issue and a perfectly good reason to bring the program to public attention, or am I just being goofy again?

Quite dissident, Soviet Amerika is looking out for you. :p

Easy slugger...I'm not saying you're not right or that he didn't have a serious correction coming-I'm not even saying that a little victory dancing isn't in order, but excessive endzone demonstrations do get a little tacky no matter how well done the touchdown.

You're right in the meat and potatoes part of the post, don't make it embarrassing to agree with you.

The trolls get me angry at times. It was late for me on the East Coast of the US and I got overly excited. Thanks for your agreement. In closing, I still own Daemoncracy.

If I had this idiot's ear, I'd put it to good use:

"Thanks a pantload for the "apology," you left-wing twit. Now that you've arrogated to yourself the decision to expose a vital intelligence operation during wartime--a decision that was never yours to make, a decision nobody elected you to make--
And a decision he didn't even make, but do go on...

aided the enemy, and done irreversible damage to national security, you think you can get rid of that guilty conscience by saying "Oops, my bad."
How? By exposing the secret that wasn't secret?

Oh, and again: He didn't do anything but defend the publishing of this story.

Well, UBL, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and My-Moo-Cow A-Muddy-Dinner-Jacket aren't interested in your phony apology, and neither is anyone else.
I'm sure the readers of his column is.

And why do you mention the president of Iran?

If you really want to apologize, resign and leave the country. Otherwise, STFU."
See? That's why you never see any public officials apologizing. They probably think the same way you do. Which is just sad...

Ahh but the ebil liberal bias in the media plays on the cons minds all the time.

Make you a deal. You let the "ebil lib press" talk go and I am sure we can get people to lay off your lovey foxynews!

:rolleyes:
gee why don't you try something more realistic... like building an acutal 1:1 scale, fully functioning death star... :p

and why should I care about what the Ebil Liberals or Ebil Conservatives print in their Ebilly Biased Media?