Lies, damn lies!

By Lance Carbunckle
Howlin' Leroy Eenk Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Of all the past newspaper scandals, and current scandals, and scandals yet to be, there is only one that smacks of a mustache twisting conspiracy, complete with furtive men in top hats and dark capes, rubbing their bellies and howling “Bwah-ha-ha-ha!”

One can argue that journalism scandals are inherently corrupt: professionals trusted with providing the public with accurate information intentionally fail their duty and cheat like little bitches. It’s not the same thing as becoming a spokesperson, or running for office, some think it’s worse. It’s lying when one is supposed to be telling the truth.

It’s easy to say that Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, et al are corrupt - plus the wire service photogs that altered their photos for effect. Certainly they are morally corrupt, but they, and the rest of their wretched lot, did what they did to feed their insatiable egos. Most reporters have insatiable egos — the crappy, highly paid ones, anyway — but most do not “Cook” stories. It’s generally accepted that these are “bad apples,” like the sado-masochists at Abu Ghraib and the rest of the rapists and murderers.

But hold on. Simply making shit up is only one way of running afoul of the code. There are many other ways, and they may be bad or worse.

The best, or worst, transgression has not received its due in the sun. This is a shame, considering it’s not about a reporter, but an editor, and a bunch of other editors, at the greatest newspaper of all time.

It’s finally been clarified by the top brass at the New York Times that they had the story about the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping program PRIOR to the 2004 presidential election and bowed to the government’s pleas and didn’t publish it.

We knew last winter that the paper had held the story, because the reporter who wrote the story left and started writing a book about the program (plus several other strange and depressing things that had yet to see the light of day and went virtually unnoticed in the press) and before he could publish his book the NYT ran his story, lest they get scooped.

It’s reasonable to say that the revelation could have altered the results of that sad contest between Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Bear in mind, the “decider” in the election was Ohio, which Bush won by a couple hundred-thousand votes (citation needed) — pocket change in a state with as many people as Ohio.

It has been said by a guy I work with that the paper might have held off running the story because they didn’t want to “affect” the election, a la the DUI story leaked by Democrats on the eve of the 2000 presidential election. Using that line of reasoning, not running the story, withholding it from the public that trusts the paper to give them independent information, also “affects” the election. After all, the story was the result of good, old-fashioned American journalism, a reporter digging up skeletons, not a leak from a campaign staffer with an ace up his or her sleeve.

Originally, at the time the story ran last December and questions arose about how long the paper had been sitting on it, Executive Editor Bill Keller said “a year,” indicating the paper cow-towed to a power-mad government after the election. Recently, when the ombudsman for the Times finally got Keller to talk, the columnist asked Keller why he lied, and Keller said: “It was probably inelegant wording.” Later he said, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

I would wager my meager paycheck that it smelled something of steak, drove a white Ford pickup and looked good in a pair of jeans when clearing brush at his ranch.

The Times columnist who calls Keller onto the mat (that guy, Byron Calame, is proof that the gray goose is the best rag we humans have) asks him to set the record straight.

But really, that’s not enough. We were betrayed. Since we can’t go back in time and do it right, I would like to submit a list of possible punishments befitting Keller and his band of crypto-assholes.

They should be made to pick three:

1- Spend the rest of their earning years working as city government or education beat reporters at small daily newspapers.

2- Personally finance a Hollywood spectacle about their poor decisions starring an array of dope fiend, modelesque actors who don’t seem to do any work. Profits from said venture would go to a fund that helps reporters from lesser class families pay off their college loans.

3- Line up next to an Olympic-sized swimming pool filled with mud and allow every typewriter rat in the free world the chance to push them in.

4- Death.

Please find the Editor and Publisher story below:

____________________
NYT' Public Editor Exposes Details on Delay in NSA Story

By E&P Staff

Published: August 12, 2006 9:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Since publication of The New York Times scoop last Dec. 16 on National Security Agency warrantless eavesdropping -- which later won a Pulitzer -- one side issue has been the hint that the paper had the basic story before election day, more than a year earlier, and held it.

Critics have suggested that if it had been published earlier it might have cost President Bush re-election. Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, has given varying answers about this. Did he mislead readers last December by stating that he had held the article for "a year" to place that after the election? Later he said, vaguely, "more than year."

In January, the paper's public editor, Byron Calame, complained that he had encountered "unusual difficulty" in trying to determine when exactly the paper learned of the surveillance. "The New York Times's explanation...was woefully inadequate," wrote Calame at that time. "And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."

Now, in the Sunday Times this week, Calame has produced a tough-minded column, revealing new information and offering fresh criticism. In the end, Keller admits that his dating of the delay had been "inelegant."

This how Calame starts: "Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?" He continues: "I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election." He adds, "Since the Times article appeared, I have grown increasingly intrigued by changes in the way the delay has been described in the paper and in comments by Mr. Keller."

Keller, who wouldn’t answer any questions about this from Calame for an earlier column, did talk to the public editor for the new report.

"The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election," Keller tells Calame. For a full accounting of why the story was delayed, see www.nytimes.com for the entire column.

Following that summary, Calame asks: So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had delayed publication for "a year,” specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election?

“It was probably inelegant wording,” Keller replies. Later he adds, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

Calame concludes: 'Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight."