Bloggers on the Payroll

There's even a SWIFT Web site .

Buzz Machine man Jeff Jarvis (who consults for the NYT Co.) finds unconvincing Bill Keller's argument that the Times is not making a judgment on the SWIFT program in exposing it. "We hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it," Keller says.

"So that is saying that we deserve to know everything, absolutely everything. As a worshiper of speech protected by the First Amendment and of transparency as the new virtue of journalism and of reporting as a pillar of a free society, you'd think I'd be applauding that sentiment. It sounds good. But I don't think it washes in real life. Newspapers know plenty they choose not to reveal: from troop locations to undercover cops' identities to corporate moves that affect shareholders (you can bet reporters get the same leaks blogs do). If they revealed all they knew at all times on all subjects, that would be a defensible model -- 'If we know it, you know it.' But they keep secrets so they get secrets and also to act responsibly. So this notion that not telling us about the banking program preempts the roles of lawmakers, judges, and voters is, well, somewhat specious.

"And though The Times says it is not to judge the program's legality or effectiveness, Keller goes on to say that they weighed the government's contention that exposing it would endanger it and they rejected that . . .

"My bottom line, not that it matters: The government has long and long been urged to follow the cut off the money to terrorists to both starve and uncover them. I wholly endorse that. I assumed that they were doing precisely what The Times is shocked that they were doing: following transactions. I don't think it's known that the program is either illegal or ineffective. But I also think it is possible enough that revealing its existence can do the program and the nation harm, so I would not have revealed it."

On the other hand, red-haired Times-basher Arianna Huffington suddenly finds a soft spot for the Gray Lady:

"Here's a change. After a year of regularly hauling the New York Times and its editors to the cyber woodshed for acting more like an arm of the Bush administration than the paper of record, I'm turning on the computer to -- wait for it -- sing the praises of Bill Keller and the gang on West 43rd. With the Fraternal Order of Secret Keepers occupying the White House, a Fourth Estate that acts like a bunch of eunuchs is especially dangerous. So it was nice to see the Gray Lady show some balls in disclosing that CIA and Treasury officials had secretly been taking a look at the extensive international banking data kept by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (aka SWIFT).

"Predictably, the no-news-is-good-news crowd at the White House immediately set out to SWIFTboat the Times. Bush called the disclosure 'disgraceful.' Cheney was even more indignant. Recalling that the Times had also disclosed the NSA wiretap program (albeit a year late -- more on that in a moment), the VP huffed: 'The New York Times has now twice -- on two separate occasions -- disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway.' The nerve! How dare the press ignore senior administration officials!?"

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum reminds us that these stories have to come from somewhere :

"The New York Times story that exposed the Treasury Department's terrorist finance tracking program says it relied on 'nearly 20' former and current government officials. The LA Times story on the same subject relied on 'more than a dozen' sources.

"Isn't that an awful lot of traitors in our midst? Why were so many people willing to talk about this? Was it because (a) revealing the program's existence didn't really endanger anything, or (b) they were concerned about its legality? Or both?"

Tom Kean, the former New Jersey governor and 9/11 commission chairman, is a respected figure in the press. And he makes clear his unhappiness with the Times when tracked down by Byron York :

"Kean tells National Review Online that the New York Times's decision to expose the terrorist finance effort -- Kean called Times executive editor Bill Keller in an attempt to persuade him not to publish -- has done terrible damage to the program.

" 'I think it's over,' Kean says. 'Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more.' Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, says he had a pessimistic feeling after calling Keller. 'He couldn't have been more courteous,' Kean recalls. 'He said he'd take my views into consideration. But . . . when the Treasury Department called to ask whether I had made the call, I said, 'Yes, I have, but I think you have a problem.'''

And here's a courageous move, as noted by the New York Post : Congress is about to talk a stand against an unknown person (or persons): "The House of Representative today takes up a resolution to condemn whoever leaked news of a top-secret terrorist money-tracking program to the New York Times."

The White House has been talking up the economy, but to little avail:

"All year long, in speeches and briefings and visits to factories and shops, President Bush and his aides have tried to convince Americans that the economy is in good shape -- and that the president deserves some credit for that," says the LAT . "That effort is not making much headway, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

"Americans are closely divided on whether the economy is in good shape, with 50% saying it is doing well and 47% saying it is doing badly, the poll found. In January, when Bush launched his campaign to spread good news, the national mood was slightly better: In a Times Poll that month, 55% said the economy was doing well. And Bush doesn't get much credit for the economy's relative health, the new survey found. Of respondents, 39% say they approve of the president's handling of the economy and 19% say they think the economy is better because of his policies -- numbers that are basically unchanged since the beginning of the year."

Remember Bernie Kerik, who for about half an hour looked like he was going to become homeland security czar? Well, he's got problems:

"Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, is close to reaching an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to having accepted improper gifts totaling tens of thousands of dollars while he was a city official in the late 1990's, two people with information on the plea negotiations said yesterday.

"Under the proposed agreement," says the NYT , "Mr. Kerik would plead guilty to failing to report accepting roughly $200,000 in renovations to his Bronx apartment -- a violation of the city's administrative code. The work, officials have said, was paid for by a New Jersey construction company that the city had long accused of having ties to organized crime."

Who ran the background check on this guy--FEMA?

John McCain, blogger ? He weighs in at the Porkbusters site.

Finally, Ana Marie Cox devotes a column to bras . ("The average size of the American breast has grown from 34B to 36C , according to manufacturers.") I can't beat Glenn Reynolds's observation: Do blogs have sweeps weeks?