Over the Top Times-Bashing

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 7:56 AM

Man, I have never seen this kind of Times-bashing before.

There is one heckuva conservative backlash building against the New York Times for publishing that piece about the administration's secret access to banking records in terror investigations.

I saw it on "Fox News Sunday," when Republican Rep. Peter King called for the newspaper to be prosecuted.

I saw it on my CNN show, when David Frum likened what the Times did to publishing troop movements in time of war -- about as serious a charge as you can hurl against a newspaper -- and Frank Rich responded that war supporters were using the press as a scapegoat and besides, didn't the terrorists already know that the United States was trying to monitor their financial transactions?

Radio commentator Tammy Bruce likened the Times to the Rosenbergs, prompting Fox host David Asman to ask whether she was suggesting execution as an appropriate penalty.

And the conservative blogosphere is on fire.

To be sure, the L.A. Times and Wall Street Journal, along with The Washington Post, also published stories last Friday on the classified program. But the NYT clearly was out in front and, in fact, held its piece for several weeks while dealing with the administration's objections.

What we're seeing is a there-they-go-again reaction on the right that is the culmination of building frustrations against the MSM in general and the Times in particular over the disclosure of classified information. And, of course, you've got President Bush calling the paper's action "shameful" and Tony Snow saying the Times needs to think hard about whether the public's right to know "might override somebody's right to live."

Some of the outside commentary is so over the top that I think those folks would repeal the First Amendment tomorrow if they could. And most of those proclaiming horror at the leaking of classified info were willing to give the White House a pass for the outing of the covert Valerie Plame.

Still, I happen to think this banking story is a closer call than the Times scoop on the domestic surveillance program because there is no clear illegality in the bank monitoring program, which arguably there was on the eavesdropping front, and because it seems more narrowly targeted at bad guys, although we certainly don't have all the details.

I've found very few liberal bloggers defending the Times -- if there was anything on Daily Kos, I missed it -- but this is Topic A on the right, beginning with National Review , which wants to spank the Times by yanking its press passes:

"Every passing week, it becomes more apparent that disgruntled leftists in the intelligence community and antiwar crusaders in the mainstream media, annealed in their disdain for the Bush administration, are undermining our ability to win the War on Terror. . . .

"The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. . . .

"The president should match Monday morning's tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn."

In the Weekly Standard, Heather MacDonald would go further:

"By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

"The Times's latest revelation of a national security secret appeared on last Friday's front page -- where no al Qaeda operative could possibly miss it. Under the deliberately sensational headline, 'Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror,' the Times blows the cover on a highly targeted program to locate terrorist financing networks. According to the report, since 9/11, the Bush administration has obtained information about terror suspects' international financial transactions from a Belgian clearinghouse of international money transfers.

"The procedure for obtaining that information could not be more solicitous of privacy and the rule of law: Agents are only allowed to seek information based on intelligence tying specific individuals to al Qaeda; they must document the intelligence behind every search request and maintain an electronic record of every search; and, in an inspired civil liberties innovation that would undoubtedly garner kudos from the Times had a Democratic administration devised it, a board of independent auditors from banks reviews the subpoena requests to make sure that only terror suspects' transactions are traced."

The Times, meanwhile, plays it straight by covering the stinging comments by Bush and other officials with no response from the paper:

"President Bush today condemned as 'disgraceful' the disclosure last week of a secret program to investigate and track terrorists that relied on a vast international database containing Americans' banking transactions. . . .

"The New York Times, followed by other news organizations, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening. In his remarks, during a brief photo opportunity in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Mr. Bush did not single out The Times by name, but his irritation was clear."

Let's quote from Bill Keller 's written response:

"Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish. . . .

"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."

Ah, here's a liberal commentator, Vanity Fair's James Wolcott , taking the other side:

"I didn't bother listening to talk radio, but I'm sure they're baying for blood between commercials for bladder control.

"What a gummy uproar. One so loud and ferocious that there almost has to be some follow-through, otherwise you are going to have one frustrated batch of highly indignants. They want the administration to show the Times and the rest of the press who's boss. The neocon contingent is already dismayed with the tiptoeing around Iran's nuclear program. . . . If the pushback against the Times peters out, if the posse disbands shortly after mounting up, the White House is going to look weak in the bugged-out eyes of its mutant defenders. It'll be interesting to see if the controversy builds or fades over the next few days, and whether or not the Times-bashers will be compelled to call their own bluff.

"In the meantime, whatever one thinks of the Times's performance leading up to Iraq and the Judith Miller debacle, the ugly threatmongering and barking ('For the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous') of Peter King shouldn't go unchallenged. Let him climb the Empire State Building if he wants to work off steam."

In case you missed this WP poll , more Americans would like us to get out of Iraq -- but not immediately:

"The survey found that 47 percent of the country now favors setting a deadline for troops to exit from Iraq, up eight percentage points since December. Opposition to a firm timetable for withdrawal stands at 51 points, down from 60 percent seven months ago.

"Among the 47 percent who favor a deadline, nearly half say U.S. troops should be out of Iraq within six months, while a third favor giving the military a year to leave. Those results are virtually identical to findings from the December poll."

And if you don't believe The Washington Post, check out USA Today :

"A majority of Americans say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. Half of those surveyed would like all U.S. forces out within 12 months."

Wasn't that, um, like, the Democratic plan, at least the non-Kerry version?

The White House seems to be backing off the other big NYT leak -- that Gen. George Casey has submitted a troop drawdown plan that would take effect if conditions permit. Dick Polman is skeptical:

"Perhaps it's absolutely total coincidence that Casey is suggesting that a phased troop withdrawal begin on the eve of the '06 congressional elections, at a time when Bush's poll numbers (and the congressional Republicans' numbers as well) are in the tank primarily because of Iraq. Even if . . . the coincidence is real, what it actually demonstrates is that the Democrats were right to raise the issue of withdrawal (with or without a timetable) in the first place. And if the timing is not totally coincidental, then it demonstrates that the Democrats have an accurate reading of the public's mood, and that they got there first. As one Democratic strategist said to me today, 'If we can't jump on this right away, and show that what the Bush administration is planning is basically a confirmation that we were right all along, then maybe we should just disband.' "

Kos has some reflections on Hillary Clinton's lack of popularity with liberal blogger types:

"There's no doubt Hillary faces some hostility in the netroots. I've had several reporters ask me whether Clinton has 'reached out' to the netroots, to which my answer is, 'no'. 'Ahh', think the reporters, 'So what Hillary needs to do is "reach out" more and all will be well, right?'

"Nevermind that 'reaching out', in political terms, seems to mean 'have a meeting with Markos', which is so freakin' stupid I can hardly stand it. I rarely do those kinds of meetings because frankly, I never know what to say. It's not like politicians will ever say anything juicy anyway. I'll talk to politicians when working on a journalistic endeavor (like Crashing the Gate or, early next year, my book on Libertarian Democrats). Other than that, I'd rather hang out with a staffer any day of the week. Staffers actually give you real information because they don't have to worry about 'gaffes' or making a bad impression or whatever. . . .

"So how would Hillary ingratiate herself to the netroots if she was so inclined? Here's how, and this applies not to just Hillary, but every single politician seeking netroots love and respect.

"1. Be a leader

"2. Get people involved

"It's that simple. It's not about kissing up to top bloggers, or praising us in speeches, or otherwise kissing our butts. It's about showing leadership.

"Hillary's problem, as I have written before, is that she has enjoyed a huge soapbox for six years and yet doesn't have a single high-profile policy or legislative accomplishment to her name on an issue of real value."

A final note: I got a wave of hostile e-mail, which seems to have been triggered by some Web site, for yesterday's column on reporter Murray Waas disclosing that he had once battled what was diagnosed as terminal cancer and exploring whether that affected his journalism. Just to be clear: Waas contacted me and asked me to write about this, and wanted to explore the impact on his reporting, a subject on which he had mixed feelings. Don't take my word for it: He's got a long post up on the subject himself.