« A monumental oversight | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

NYT Blabbing Admission -- We Were Wrong, But It Was Bush's Fault

Michelle Malkin has excellent coverage of the New York Times' ombudsman, Byron Calame's admission that he got it wrong on publishing the banking data surveillance program.

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.
So, why has he changed his mind?
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.
But it was all Bush's fault so no one should blame anyone at the NYT.
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.
This is so typical of the way the left operates -- page one stories about all the evils of the Bush administration, then when facts prove otherwise, if we are lucky, we get a buried admission months later, after the accusations and allegations have been accepted as conventional wisdom. It is predictable, but effective.

Update: Carol Liebau and Flopping Aces say this is another "Emily Litella" moment. I agree.

Update II: La Shawn Barber thinks Calame should resign.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NYT Blabbing Admission -- We Were Wrong, But It Was Bush's Fault:

» Flopping Aces linked with Bush Made Me Do It

» Drudge Radio Podcast linked with Gleeful Democrats in media think they have this thing won

» A Blog For All linked with NYT Public Editor Admits Publication Wrong

» La Shawn Barber's Corner linked with NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign

» The Florida Masochist linked with The Knucklehead of the Day award

» Church and State linked with NYTimes Would Rather Ask for Forgiveness than Perm

Comments (43)

My gosh He sounds just like... (Below threshold)
914:

My gosh He sounds just like the leftie trolls on this site.

No wonder their losing advertisers dollars along with readers. Just like the left are losing elections and voters.

The San Jose Mercury [Murky... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

The San Jose Mercury [Murky] "News" has a column today by Steve Andreasen. THIS is the opening paragraph:
"Increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration's policy of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, North Korea has now played what it views as its ultimate trump card, believing a nuclear test will compel Washington to engage directly with Pyongyang diplomatically and forgo any thought of ``regime change.''"

OHMYGAWD...the Norks, just like the NY Times are VICTIMS!!!

So the only reason they started building a nuclear bomb in 1994, in violation of the nuclear power "deal" the Clintons made with them is that they KNEW Bush would be President one day!!

Wow...way to go Kimmy. And the whole "regime change" thing good ole Stevie Andreasen threw in just for grins. Since this has NOT been the aim of the Bush administration.

And the NY Times WOULD apply even the most minimal journalistic standards but their freaking feelings were hurt???

Where the heck is the white rabbit???

Hey Listen, as I've said be... (Below threshold)
Sal Manella:

Hey Listen, as I've said before, I am and have always been an Independent. Capable of Independent thought. Lorie Byrd, is it really so wise to cling to just one political party? This would have us assume that this party you cling to has most of the best ideas and policies. Do the dummies really line up on just one side of the political spectrum? To consistantly attack the opposing party assumes they have nothing to offer. This amounts to nothing more than a childish excersise in self deception.

Its time to listen to other voices than those to claim to have the answers now. The current administration has FAILED to prevent N Korea from attaining nuclear weapons. It is FAILING to stop Iran from attaining the same. This administration is EMBARRASING the United States and FAILING in its origional stated mission of setting up an independent democratic government in Iraq. They have FAILED to find WMDs in Iraq dispite their assurences that WMDs would be found in Iraq. The current administration has blown the balanced budget, and our Nation Debt has passed 9 trillion dollars. If that does not alarm you, I don't know what will. It IS very possible to go bankrupt, just like the USSR and collapse as a nation. Failure to face these facts is nothing more than self delusion and willful blindness. You need to stop playing the childish game of trying to win politically. This is not sports, not a game. I really don't care which party is in the White House as long as there is a change from this failed administration. Personally I like gridlock. I like a nice even mix of democrats and republicans. This way, no one gets a blank check, and we can finally get oversite once again. Your pathetic.

Ah yes ... trash the nation... (Below threshold)
Vulgorilla:

Ah yes ... trash the national security first, ask questions later. Benedict Arnold - blazing a trail for Ted Kennedy and The New York Times.

This is so typical of th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

This is so typical of the way the left operates -- page one stories about all the evils of the Bush administration, then when facts prove otherwise

And this is so typical of the right...

What facts were "proven otherwise"? He's saying that he doesn't believe they should have published the story. He said nothing about believing the story to be inaccurate.

Brian: "What facts were ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Brian: "What facts were "proven otherwise"? "

Well...he cites TWO right off the bat:
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.

These two were the cornerstone of the NY Times for running with it in the first place!

The NY Times ASSUMED the Bush administration WOULD be guilty of both things.

Brain, read and read again.... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Brain, read and read again. There was no story, there was a program to track terrorists in an attempt to stop another massive attack on the United States. The NYT's made the program unusable. So far the financial tracking program hasn't shown up in the terrorists handbook but the NSA terrorists tracking phone intercept program has. They are now giving instructions on how to use the phone system without being detected. Use of the thousands of throw away cell phones that were purchased by the 'peaceful' muslems in the United States within days of the traitors at the NYT's (and whatever traitor in congress leaked it to them) publishing the story is 'item no. 1. Use the phones and then throw them away or destroy. Great job NYT, you can take credit for the next attack.

Now CNN has dropped all pretense of being an American news outlet or American Patroits. They are now 100% Islamofascist's supporters and propagandist. No pretense, out in the open. Time to boycott all advertisers on CNN and turn off the network, block it from your home. Most TV's/cable/satelite boxes have a lockout by channel feature. Use it. Don't expose your children to the to violent for broadcast anytime propaganda.

" if we are lucky, we get a... (Below threshold)
jp2:

" if we are lucky, we get a buried admission months later, after the accusations and allegations have been accepted as conventional wisdom."

That's funny - Wizbang does the.exact.same.thing.
I know you aren't journalists or talented, but please, the hypocrisy hurts.

Case in point: Paul lying about Murtha and burying his correction deep in the archives. Or Kim's very numerous false reports.

Lorie, I suggested to you earlier - Wizbang needs a correction section, like the NYT. And I can guarantee it won't be lacking of posts.

(Credit goes to Jay Tea for correcting his false claims about Harry Reid with a seperate story, not buried in the archives)

Salmon mellaAre Yo... (Below threshold)
914:

Salmon mella

Are You by any chance paranoid schiczophrenic or just bi-polar.

jp2...the great thing about... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

jp2...the great thing about the CONSERVATIVE blogs is that corrections DO happen...and very quickly. Corrections of opinions and depictions of actions. Granted and a good thing.

Now then, if this blog ever DOES publish U.S. Government secrets then your criticism will be valid. Printing such a secret, as in the case of the phone and the finances CANNOT be made whole again by a half-hearted "Oops".

Your headline is incorrect.... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Your headline is incorrect.

"NYT Blabbing Admission -- We Were Wrong, But It Was Bush's Fault"

The New York Times did not say "We were wrong".

Instead, it is Byron Calame's admission that he got it wrong.... He doesn't speak for the newspaper, it's publisher or its editors -- in fact, he speaks only for himself. The title of your post is a lie.

Justrand, don't blame Brian... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Justrand, don't blame Brian - he apparently can't read. lol

I love it when the liberals have to admit their mistakes, yet they make sure they do it in the most low key way possible, so that most people will never hear it.

You know, the liberals are ... (Below threshold)

You know, the liberals are the ones who claim to be more sophisticated and nuanced, and it's the conservatives who only see things in black and white.

Yet here again we see the absolutism of the Left: errors, misstatements, and mistakes don't exist. If someone says something wrong, they LIED and that's the only possibility.

jp2 brings up my Harry Reid piece. I didn't make "false claims," I misunderstood the finer points of Reid's scumminess.

I'm still wondering when all those people who talked about Rove being the evil mastermind behind the Valerie Plame story, complete with tales of his indictment and calls for his frogmarch out of the White House, will ever own up to their own mistaking their own fantasies with reality...

J.

Well...he cites TWO righ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well...he cites TWO right off the bat

No, he does not say the article wrongly reported those facts. He says that his own understanding of those facts influenced how he felt about publishing the article.

the absence of any evidence that anyone's private data had actually been misused.

Let's use that as an example. Calame does not say that the article wrongly stated that anyone's private data had been misused. He does say that it was his personal belief that it had been misused that led him to support publication of the article in the first place. That isn't saying the article was wrong at all.

Justrand, don't blame Br... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Justrand, don't blame Brian - he apparently can't read. lol

And you apparently cannot comprehend what you read. Try again. Oh yeah... lol.

I love it when the liberals have to admit their mistakes, yet they make sure they do it in the most low key way possible, so that most people will never hear it.

Yes, because a 500-word column on the Opinion page of the NYT is so low key and buried from public view.

You know, the liberals a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You know, the liberals are the ones who claim to be more sophisticated and nuanced, and it's the conservatives who only see things in black and white.

Well, this is ironic. This thread is about someone who revised his opinion about whether an article should have been be published. Quite a sophisticated and nuanced position. But to the right, that is equivalent to the article having being wrong. Black and white.

Brian: "Let's use... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Brian:
"Let's use that as an example. Calame does not say that the article wrongly stated that anyone's private data had been misused. He does say that it was his personal belief that it had been misused that led him to support publication of the article in the first place. That isn't saying the article was wrong at all."

Brian, your post above was so, uh, PERFECT!! I had to repost it. Bravo.

When they printed the NATIONAL SECRETS they did so because they and he BELIEVED it MIGHT be true. And they are saying "Oops" because they can't find ANY FREAKING EVIDENCE to support their "belief". They also found out the damn thing is LEGAL!!! Shattering their other "belief".

But you're correct, Brian. They are merely stating that they had no business printing a "news" story, alledging it was illegal and that the government "misused" this power...since neither was true.

But yes, the program was true. and thus their story was accurate. So, he admits, is their complete bias which led them to assume facts not in evidence!!

It's like they get wind of a major federal bust of an Islamic terror linked group and then tip them off the day before! Oh wait...they did THAT too!!

What will be truly "vicious... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

What will be truly "vicious" is when the NYT et al expose so much of our necessary secrets, we finally suffer a catastophic attack by the jihadists.

That will be vicious. Truthful criticism by the President is not.

Brian, you're one simplisti... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Brian, you're one simplistic little son of a bitch.

The question wasn't whether the article was true, it was whether it should have been published at all. And it shouldn't have been.

There is nothing you or Lee can point to that would make disclosing this national secret worth risking the lives of your fellow countrymen. Not anything in the report--no broken laws, no infringement of freedom, nothing.

But there may be "broken" lives down the line, and it may very well be on the NYT Editors' account. I wouldn't want blood on my hands for a cheap headline.

But then, I'm not a liberal.

So...which underdog was he ... (Below threshold)
trainwreck:

So...which underdog was he pulling for? Terrorists??

Brian ... (Below threshold)
914:

Brian "Yes, because a 500 word column on the opinion page is so buried from public view."

Your right! put it on the front page just like the original NSA program article.

"This thread is about someone who revised their opinion about wether an article should have been printed or not."

I thought Newspapers ( and I use the term very loosely ) were about reporting actual news? Not about feelings and emotions and vandettas against politicians?

Learn something new everyday I guess.

Lee"The New Yor... (Below threshold)
914:

Lee

"The New York Times did not say "We were wrong"

"The title of You post is a lie."

The Times were wrong! The title of the post is therefore the truth..

Now if the post had said something like "Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

Now that is an example of a lie..

Another smackdown of the id... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Another smackdown of the idiot Brian. I love it!

C'mon Justrand, give us ano... (Below threshold)
Jo:

C'mon Justrand, give us another! Brian is melting.

Brian's already melted. He... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Brian's already melted. He and Lee are just symptoms of the MSM disease. The real disease is manifested in likes of the Associated dePressed. The A/P has been running headlines of opinions disguised as "news" all day (Yahoo is only too eager to refresh them). The latest piece of crap headline is:

"GOP losses could spark partisan warfare"

We've gone past asking WILL their be losses...and now are speculating whether those losses will upset the wonderful spirit of bi-partisanship that currently reigns!!

"partisan warfare"?? yup...if (God forbid) Nancy Pelosi ever DID become Speaker of the House then, yes, there would be "partisan warfare". That bitch will not even ATTEMPT to try and have the House of Representatives do any real business.

It'll be the Salem witch-trials all over again. With a REAL witch running them!!

like I said, God forbid!!

Jay Tea: Basically, you did... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Jay Tea: Basically, you didn't do basic fact checking. If you had read one article about it, you wouldn't have written what you did. I know you aren't the dullest knife in the drawer - so I am assuming you were lying. Were you just having trouble comprehending that day?

Also - no writing at all about Hastert's land deal which is far scummier. Suprising from such an independent!

What does Laura Ingram call... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

What does Laura Ingram call them? Oh yeah, "But Monkeys"...

So apropos....

jp2(jackass plus 2)--too ba... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

jp2(jackass plus 2)--too bad I am not in charge of this blog as your ass would be grass in the north pole.

Let'se see, the NYT says th... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Let'se see, the NYT says they were wrong (again), the BBC admits it's insanely biased and someone over at ABC's The Notebook admits the MSM is giddy thinking the dems might win big.

Of course we've all known these things for years, but hey, it's nice to hear them finally spoken aloud.

When they printed the NA... (Below threshold)
Brian:

When they printed the NATIONAL SECRETS they did so because they and he BELIEVED it MIGHT be true. And they are saying "Oops" because they can't find ANY FREAKING EVIDENCE to support their "belief".

What they printed was true. There was no "belief" involved. In their response, the government confirmed it was true. They just said there's nothing wrong with it.

The question wasn't whet... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The question wasn't whether the article was true, it was whether it should have been published at all.

Agree, that was Calame's point. But then Lorie interpreted that as:

page one stories about all the evils of the Bush administration, then when facts prove otherwise

So my response was that no facts of the story were "proven otherwise".

Too simplistic for you?

Let'se see, the NYT says... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Let'se see, the NYT says they were wrong (again)

The "NYT" did not say they were wrong. One person said he changed his mind about whether he thought the story should be published. He said nothing about the story itself being wrong.

I know this is a sophisticated and nuanced distinction, so I understand if you don't get it.

put it on the front page... (Below threshold)
Brian:

put it on the front page just like the original NSA program article.
...
I thought Newspapers ... were about reporting actual news? Not about feelings and emotions

So you acknowledge that "news" goes on the front page, then say the "feelings and emotions" should go on the front page instead of the Opinion page.

Nice contradiction.

When the moonbats get this ... (Below threshold)

When the moonbats get this riled up, it can only mean one of two things: either you've desecrated one of their icons, or some state has threatened to enforce its sodomy statute.

Props to Mike Cathcart, wherever you are.

jp2: I play to my strengths... (Below threshold)

jp2: I play to my strengths. I am no Congressional watchdog. Others with far more interest in the matter can tackle Hastert's land issues; I, for the most part, find Congress a crashing bore. If you want to pay me to do it, let's talk; otherwise, I'll continue doing what I do: writing about whatever grabs my interest.

I brought up Reid because it illustrated the hugely different ways Congressional scandals are handled, and how the political affiliation of the congresscritter bears on that.

Finally, on Reid, my error was an extremely minor one. The guy did NOT adequately report the details of a major financial transaction. Initially, I said he did not report the amount of profits he gained, which was incorrect. He did that, but did not report that he had gained that profit while in partnership with a shady lobbyist. I actually find my correction even more damning.

But it's not like anything's going to happen to him. He went back and amended the records, and as we all know, Democrats are entitled to all the ethical Mulligans and do-overs they want.

J.

I fear I allowed the vic... (Below threshold)
Red Fog:

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.

"Underdog" NYTs journo/traitor has faith in the free press because without it, he'd be hung by a mob from the nearest tree.

Brian...one last time (then... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Brian...one last time (then I'll leave you alone to wallow in your ignorance)

The FRONT-PAGE story about our effort to protect American citizens through scrutiny of financial records CONCLUDED that it was both illegal and being abused!! The existence of the program WAS and IS a FACT!! So THAT part of their story was correct.

But their CONCLUSION, which led to their JUSTIFICATION to run the story in the first place was WRONG!!

Publishing a story on June 5, 1944 titled: "ALLIES TO ATTACK NORMANDY BEACHES AT DAWN TOMORROW" would have been factually correct!!

JUSTIFYING the printing of such a story on the basis of it would be ILLEGAL to attack those beaches would have been a LIE.

The NY Times of today would print the June 5th headline anyway. They are scum.

Justrand, you accuse me of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Justrand, you accuse me of ignorance, but you follow that with blatently false statements about an article you've obviously never read. I'll just assume you are simply lazy, since the other obvious alternatives are much more embarrassing for you.

The FRONT-PAGE story about our effort to protect American citizens through scrutiny of financial records CONCLUDED that it was both illegal and being abused!!

Please highlight the parts of the article that CONCLUDED it was illegal or that it was being abused.

It's all Bill Clinton's fau... (Below threshold)
Sindy:

It's all Bill Clinton's fault.

excuse me, Brian...I DID mi... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

excuse me, Brian...I DID misspeak. What the editors CONCLUDED was that it was in everyone's best interest to print this because they believed THIS part of the article:

"That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues."

So yes, they didn't CONCLUDE it was illegal IN the article. They concluded in their own minds it probably WAS, and the "issues" were grave enough to warrant this breach of national security.

Now, of course, they have decided that it WAS NOT illegal and HAD NOT resulted in abuse.

Nuance...I'm just not as good as a Leftist.

All will forgiven as long as the government finds the person who LEAKED IT TO THEM and sends that person to prison for most of the rest of their life. OK?

The New York Times the most... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The New York Times the most vile bit of poison print thats was ever to recieve ink

Jim, I think it's the sodom... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Jim, I think it's the sodomy law enforcement.

Gets 'em every time.

Justrand, you did not missp... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Justrand, you did not misspeak. You spouted off about something that you knew nothing about, and after being called on it you're trying to weasel out of your position without admitting it.

But in any case, you still don't get it.

So yes, they didn't CONCLUDE it was illegal IN the article. They concluded in their own minds it probably WAS

So now you are a mindreader of the NYT editors?

Now, of course, they have decided that it WAS NOT illegal and HAD NOT resulted in abuse.

"They" decided no such thing. Calame is the ombudsman, essentially an independent columnist who does not speak for the editors. If he wants to announce that he once thought the program was illegal, that's his own business.

Nuance...I'm just not as good as a Leftist.

There's no nuance here. Just your baseless claims and your weasely attempt to escape your own statements. But I shall allow you a graceful exit.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy