Public Editor to NY Times “management” – SCREW YOU!!!

[autorank]

Well, it’s the times so he didn’t say exactly that but he said it in so many words. Byron Calme, the new NYT Public Editor just lit a fire that will not go out, I predict, until Bill Keller, Editor, and Charles Sulzberger are removed (there is a Sullzberger family heir apparent and he’s a good one).

The Public Editor

Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence

By BYRON CALAME
Published: January 1, 2006
E-mail: [e-mail]


THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.

<snip>

For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.


Byron Calme, an Honest Man
Public Editor, NY Times

I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.

(Calme then says Keller and Sulzberger are “stonewalling.” He’s old enough to have a specific intent for this word.)

The most obvious and troublesome omission in the explanation was the failure to address whether The Times knew about the eavesdropping operation before the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election. That point was hard to ignore when the explanation in the article referred rather vaguely to having "delayed publication for a year." To me, this language means the article was fully confirmed and ready to publish a year ago - after perhaps weeks of reporting on the initial tip - and then was delayed.


Maybe they’re reading DU at the Times;)

CALME IS AN INTELLECTUALLY HONEST PERSON WHO DOES HIS JOB AS HE SEES IT,
WITHOUT CONCERN FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. HE’S MY MAN OF THE YEAR.

[rman]

1. fascinating

goes to show how much influence "management" in the big media has regarding what gets published and what not. and what courage it takes to try not to comply.

"stonewalling"?

makes me think of something Indira Singh and Sibel Edmonds have said:

"...there are walls within the FBI, walls within the CIA, behind which these (clandestine) operations take place..."
- Indira Singh

KPFA "Guns and Butter"
Interviews with Indira Singh
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N
"Ground Zero 911, Blueprint For Terror, Part Two" July 20th 2005
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?server=209.81.10.18&port=80&file=dummy.m3u&mount=/data/20050720-Wed1400.mp3 (mp3)


"There have been times when I came so very close to giving up, knowing that all those available channels I had pursued, from the Congress to the Courts, from the IG's office to the 9/11 Commission, became rock solid walls and ears deafened to the voice of public concern."
- Sibel Edmonds
http://911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=425


looks like these walls are everywhere.

[autorank]

6. We're witnessing "management" in a civil war...this is a terrible blow to

the * capitulators. Keller and Sulzberger will live in infamy for their sins. Besides, the NYT is just too important to too many New Yorkers to let it fall. This is good for both America and NYC! And that's fine with me...Manhattan, best of the best.

Great quotes. I'll check out the link.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thank you, Byron Calme! And thank you, autorank, for posting this!

Good to see somebody standing up to these war criminals and U.S. democracy-destroyers. I hope this trend continues within the NYT. They have a lo-o-o-o-o-ong way to go to restore NYT credibility. Getting rid of Keller and C. Sulzberger would be a good start. I think those two deserve to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail, for colluding with Judith Miller in propagandizing a completely illegal, unjust, immoral war, in which tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered, and others tortured, and their country destroyed, and our country inflicted with the deaths and maimings of thousands of U.S. soldiers, and saddled with ruinous debt. They may also be guilty of treason, for collusion with Judith Miller in the outing of a CIA agent and an entire CIA counter-proliferation project, 20 years in the making, putting all covert agents/contacts at risk of getting killed. Their coverup of Bush spying comes as no surprise. And, frankly, I hope Alberto Gonzales nails them to the wall for revealing it. Hoist on their own petard! You put 'em in office, you jerks! See how you like being tortured to give up your source!

[autorank]

4. You tell 'em...

Damn, remind me to stay on your good side! I couldn't agree more. The magnitude of Keller's and Sulburger's crimes is immeasurable. I don't know how they sleep at night. In fact, I don't know how I sleep at night (but that's for different reasons). Great stuff. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[aquart]

3. I sent him a Thank You:

Thank you for asking those 28 questions on my behalf, Mr. Calme.

The men who refused to answer should be fired. They are not journalists. They are obviously not publishers. They are rightwing government puppets.

If it is true that they KNEW Bush was spying on American citizens without warrants before the election, then American deaths since the election are on their heads. The people who died of dehydration in New Orleans, our soldiers, our citizens without jobs or healthcare.....if the men in charge of the New York Times could have altered the election BY TELLING THE TRUTH, then they are damned.

This is what evil looks like, cowards who betray their country for......what? Did Bush pat them on the head?

Keller and Sulzberger have damaged The New York Times. They have damaged the United States.

Thank you for asking them for the truth. They don't know what it is.

[autorank]

5. I bet he has a big smile on his face when he reads this one

:)ing slyly but with real satisfaction...or maybe:evilgrin: (na, that's me in that situation).

This guy is a mench!

[Frustratedlady]

7. How about flooding the NYT's "IN" box with emails of

thanks and congratulations to Mr. Calme for standing up for the truth? Perhaps, if other editors see (or hear of) a strong, positive response going to the NYT, they will realize that they might just be heading down the wrong road and turn around to follow those of us who are demanding the truth?!

It will only take a few seconds out of your New Year's Day and may make tomorrow a whole lot brighter.

Good job, Aquart!!!!

[acmejack]

8. Something like this?

Mr. Calame,

I compliment you upon your forthrightness, a virtue which, sadly, appears to be in short supply at the Times. The Times once redoubtable reputation as "The paper of record" has been sullied and rendered inoperable in this former reader's mind. Men and women of integrity such as yourself give one cause to hope for the future of the fourth estate. Therefore, I thank you for your efforts on the behalf of integrity.

That said, the Times, removed from my daily reading list as a direct consequence of the Miller incidents, fell into deeper disrepute with the misguided decision to implement the infamous "Times Select", a lesson which could be better learned by studying your competitor, the WSJ and their editorial page policies. But on the positive side, your paper still has an industry leading Sunday crossword, which I still greatly enjoy working. Perhaps the rest of the paper might aspire to the lofty of status of that diversion, it still has reputation for quality, timeliness, and one can actually rely of the factuality of the answers supplied the following week.

Respectfully,
acmejack

[Frustratedlady]

10. Thank you for taking the time!

I just sent mine, too. It will be interesting to see if he mentions an increase in emails.

I see you are a crossword nut, too? I once thought that if I successfully completed the crossword, every morning, it would mean I wasn't going into Alzheimer's Disease. Then, it dawned on me that I couldn't even depend on that, as no one was checking my answers. ;)

Happy New Year!

[babylonsister]

12. Too funny! My dad and his lady friend do the

crossword puzzle from the NYT religiously, for that very reason. They're working their brains!

[freedomfries]

13. Thanks for the great post with the Happy Calm Smile autorank!

And now for an editorial that's also worth every drop of ink it's printed on, go back to:
NYT EDITORIAL: Conspiring Against the Voters
Published: December 31, 2005
President Bush has announced four nominees for the Federal Election Commission, moving to keep the policing of campaign abuses firmly in the hands of party wheel horses.
...
The most objectionable nominee is Hans von Spakovsky ... reported to have been involved in the manoeuvering to overrule the career specialists who warned that the Texas gerrymandering orchestrated by Representative Tom DeLay violated minority voting rights. Senators need the opportunity to delve into that, as well as reports of Mr. von Spakovsky's involvement in such voting rights abuses as the purging of voter rolls in Florida in the 2000 elections.
...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2342098

:applause:

[autorank]

18. Here's my adoration...

The column on domestic spying coverage by the NYT is utterly brilliant.

It is an act of intellectual honesty and courage. I admire you and your work.

This article is going to become a central document in the history of modern journalism.

I had stopped reading NYT some time ago because of biased coverage. I am now returning (not a minute too soon) to watch what happens. I'm confident that your work will get results. You need to know that there are millions just in NYC who support you, millions, without any doubt.

With highest regards,


His excellency Autorank
(well, I used my real name;)

[SushiFan]

9. imo, the NYT has been bullied by the GWBers into

being a shadow of its former self. I loved reading it every day when I subscribed, but it is a lukewarm version of the public watchdog it once was. The NYT should be the 1st Amendment itself, but it seems to worry too much lately about offending false xians, lying repukes and the Kingdom of Oz currently occupying our WH. Too sad. So I read the WaPo now.

[autorank]

19. Great letter...

WaPo, you read it? How, no gag reflex? (haha). Actually, I sneak one when I'm having breakfast at a diner but I turned them off about the time they thought Clinton's sex life was news.

Great letter. This guy deserves our support.

[hootinholler]

11. Simple, if they answer the questions...

It would be admissable in a trial for Misprison of a Felony. Apparently, the Times management has taken the 5th with thier ombudsman.

Mr. Calame, thank you for this. Sincerely, my thanks.

-Hoot

[hootinholler]

16. After reading the full article and looking over His web journal...

What are the 28 (or now, 35) questions? I hope one of them is: "Did you report this to the FBI or the Justice Dept.?"

-Hoot

[welshTerrier2]

14. Here's the link to Calame's "Public Editorial"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor

There are two possible explanations for the Times' refusal to explain why they failed to print the explosive NSA story last year - one is commercial; the other political ...

Commercially, it is possible that the Times' made the wrong call after being pressured by the bush administration not to print the story ... if that's the case, admitting they didn't publish "all the news that's fit to print" could do incredible damage to the paper's image ... of course, one could readily argue that's happening anyway ... there is just no way to excuse failing to inform the public about the domestic spying as soon as they knew about it ... so, speculation one is that they've calculated it would be better to take the hit by saying nothing than to admit they caved to administration pressure on a story of this magnitude ...

Option two, though, is the "Big Scary" ... Option two says that the decision was totally political ... the story was held to protect bush's re-election chances ... my first counterpoint to this line of thinking was that the story could have been released shortly after the election ... but it appears that the publishing of Risen's book was the ultimate impetus to release the story at all ... so a pre-election cover-up remains a very real possibility ... the paper's current refusal to explain why the story was held might be due to the need to cover-up the relationship between the NY Times and the WH ...

If Keller and Sulzberger squashed the story for political reasons, a most disturbing question is raised about exactly what their relationship to the bush administration is ... Were they paid? Are they CIA? ... the problem for the Times, and it's almost hard to imagine a problem of greater magnitude, is that the paper knew the truth and failed to disclose it ... the bottom line is that there is NO EXCUSE that washes away that sin ...

There was an incredibly prophetic scene in the movie "Three Days of the Condor" where the Redford character gave information to the NY Times that he hoped would undermine a secret government operation that was being kept from the American people ... The government guy said to the Redford character "What if they don't print it?" ... he was hinting at the possibility that the government had control over what got published ... now that's a scary thought, isn't it??

[autorank]

20. Great point on "Day of the Condor"

That was a chilling moment. I remembered it immediately when you described it.

I think that the second motivation is the correct answer. NYT has been "rolling in the hay" with Buschco for whatever reasons. I don't think it's a Sulzberger family diktat. In fact, the cousin or whatever he is at the International Herald will use this to batter current "management."

The really interesting scene that only those who live in NYC will see is the churn there. NYC residents are the world's most sophisticated, in some ways, when it comes to politics. After all, they opposed Iraq in droves and never fell for Bush and his BS. The loyalty to this paper must have been strained to the near breaking point by Miller's escapades. Now there is a cause, a reason to strike back. I see the publisher and editor gone in a few months.

That will be a happy day.

[SpiralHawk]

15. k & r -- on general principle

Tell the truth. That's your job. Not easy, corporate media, but still the American people expect you to do it. How about a taste of honor for a change: tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[otohara]

17. kick

[sirjohn]

21. Am waiting for editor to be jailed a la Miller

To protect un-named sources.

[autorank]

22. True justice: Put Keller & Sulberger in the Alexandria Detention Center,

Women's Division. It's a fun place.

[Kurovski]

23. It's amazing that we've come to such a state of decay in this nation

that it requires a bold brand of courage just to do your job in the media.

It's impossible to disagree with autorank's assessment of this thoroughly professional man.

[AndreaCG]

24. Another LTTE to the NY Times that will never get published:

I read Byron Calame's piece about The New York Times' editors stonewalling him with great interest. At least there is one member of the New York Times staff who cares about serving the public, as opposed to the self-serving, duplicitous and partisan behavior of its senior management, specifically Arthur Sulzburger Jr. and Bill Keller. Those two should join Judith Miller in resigning from the Times in disgrace.

[BeHereNow]

25. Why was this article disappeared from GD?

Any one know?
It was posted originally in LBN, moved to GD and
then "poof," it was gone.
What gives?
Now it is here...
No explanation for its disappearance from GD- just gone.
BHN

[BeHereNow]

26. Okay, that is weird- it just re appeared.

:shrug: bhn

[autorank]

32. Actually, it was posted by two people other than me. One had it in

LBN. All three were on Greatest for a period earlier today so somebody must have liked the story;)

It's all good, or at least whatever.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. *

[dpbrown]

28. So they'll show him the door instead

Why do you think Sulzberger and Keller will go over this?

[EFerrari]

29. You're a better man than I am, autorank.

I don't see the same sunshine between Calame and Keller that you do. Not at all. If constructing this as some kind of Oedipal struggle works for the Times (and, believe it or not, their subscription numbers show that they actually increase their readership when they produce psychodrama), it doesn't work for the electorate that they have been ripping off for the last five years.

And, I'm certain that someone at the Times Public Editor's Office reads DU. I've been sending them a thread a day since the illegal government spying story broke.

I hope you are right and I am wrong. If he gets somewhere or quits, I will apologize to him. If the next time he addresses this question we get the National Security defense, well, it won't surprise me. Let's see how he does.

[FogerRox]

30. the time may be right for this

A larger effort to oust Keller and Sulzberger.

Email/blog blitz, demanding they git outta town, pardner.

Auto - I agree with your take on the author, and our 2 scum bags, Keller and Sulzberger.

It may be about timing-- now may be the time.

On edit-- If a campaign to oust these 2 dirt bags-- Keller and Sulzberger- succeeds-- then for the first time in a long time-- A top dog will have been held accountable--- this sort of ouster could have a ripple effect thru the media- AT A TIME WHEN IT WOULD DO THE MOST GOOD.

When was the last time THE PUBLIC forced a member-- or two -- of the media to quit or get fired? Jason BLair? This is way bigger than that, this is bigger than what Nixon did, worse than what Nixon did.

[EFerrari]

31. Well, then I hope you're both right.

:)

[autorank]

34. I do too;)

I'm betting on the good citizens of New York City. Many of them have a relationship with this paper that's really intense. They carry it around, they know who the writers are, they do the stupid x word puzzles. They write to authors, the paper, and most important of all LTTE's. It's a great honor to get your letter published. Now, Sulzberger and keller come along and ruin everything. Who wants to carry them around, write to them, keep tabs, etc. They don't suffer fools or assholes gladly in NYC. The real tell here is how much heat is the NYT getting from the readership. I'd bet some real $$$'s it's intense. That's the ball game. Plus it's an opening for the palace intrigue.

We might actually have one f'ing decent newspaper (CM) in this country in a few weeks.

If not, that's fine too. We'll keep hammering regardless.

Happy New Year!!!

[EFerrari]

35. Oh, get my hopes up, you big tease.

Lol!

Happy New Year, autorank.

Thanks for all of your amazing work all that long, hard year.

:toast:

[autorank]

33. Much worse than Nixon. Nixon didn't start Viet Nam.

Nixon didn't do a lot of what Bush has done. My God, to be so much worse than Nixon people know it intuitively, well that's amazing.

Let's throw the bastards out!