Defending The New York Times

A lot of people, including myself admittedly, got angry when the New York Times revealed that they held back publication of the Bush/NSA story for over a year. Their reasons for doing this were dubious and not explained originally and this led to the anger. I did later note that "I am glad they did print the story... No matter why they broke this story, the fact is that the story they broke is important."

Andrew Sullivan threw in his well-appreciated two cents on all this yesterday, making a good case for a) the Times holding the story, and b) the good job the Times did in exposing this serious issue. I concede the point; the bottom line is that it is good the story was published.

Here's what Andrew said-

The only place the NYT obviously screwed up was in not disclosing Risen's forthcoming book. But taking a year to verify an important story, and getting the right sources to firm it up, is good journalism. I find the notion that this somehow undermines national security a little odd. Do we really think al Qaeda members previously believed all their calls to the U.S. were free from any surveillance? Now that we know it for sure, will this change much? I doubt it....

...This is a real story, highlighting arguably illegal activity by the president, breaking with precedent and creating a warrant-free license to listen to American's phone conversations, with no independent vetting at all. The NYT waits a year to get its facts right and its sources firm. The editors confer with the president himself, adjust the story to remove anything that might seriously jeopardize sources or intelligence, and then publish. What the hell is wrong with any of that? It seems just the right balance. One big issue for the coming year is whether we have an executive that is out of control, pushing beyond legal and constitutional limits in ways that beg pushback. This new information informs that important debate. Good for Keller and Sulzberger for exposing it.

Emphasis added by me. And a thumbs up to Andrew for a sane take on the matter.

Related- See this column by Jack Schafer: Sympathy for Bill Keller- Giving the New York Times executive editor the benefit of the doubt