Over the Top Times-Bashing

"We heard similar arguments against publishing last year's reporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that our article would mean the death of that program. We were told that telecommunications companies would -- if the public knew what they were doing -- withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and new congressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdropping program continues to operate much as it did before."

Liberal blogger Dan Kennedy agrees with Keller overall but takes issue with some of his points:

"Did Keller let anyone edit this? It was the Times and other news organizations that revealed the existence and the details of this program -- not angry bloggers and pundits. For Keller to try to toss the blame back into the laps of his critics suggest that he himself was pretty angry when he sat down to write. Unseemly . . . Finally, Keller writes:

"It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places -- New York and the Washington area -- that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

"Huh? It seems here that he's trying to say we shouldn't question his motives because, if there's a terrorist attack, Times people might be among the victims. Well, gee. So would a lot of other folks."

Back to the conservative bloggers. Instapundit Glenn Reynolds , who is, after all, a law professor, makes a larger argument about the role of the media:

"I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them.

"A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: 'It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly.'

"The founders gave freedom of the press to the people , they didn't give freedom to the press . Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the 'freedom of the press' the Framers described was also called 'freedom in the use of the press.' It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.

"Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller's piece look like, well, just what it is -- arrogant and self-justificatory posturing."

Power Line's Scott Johnson has used the P word before, and uses it again:

"The Times of course has no constitutional [privilege] to protect the identity of its sources. These sources could and should be prosecuted for violating the fundamental laws that govern their conduct. If the administration cannot summon the political will to prosecute the Times, the administration should at the least, in cases involving serious breaches of national security, abandon the policy of treating reporters as witnesses of last resort. It should promptly call Keller, Risen, Lichtblau et al. before a grand jury in which they are asked to identify their sources and given the Judith Miller treatment when they refuse."