Un. Freaking. Believable. The NYTimes ombudsman, Byron Calame, buried a bombshell mea culpa in his column today--reversing his prior defense of the Times' blabbermouth report on a once-secret terrorist banking data surveillance program and now admitting the paper was wrong to publish it
Not just wrong to publish, but wrong in the facts and analysis. Calame writes;
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.
I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.
Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.
In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)
A Malkin reader explains just how hard it is to find this little confession;
Just think how many people probably read this "apology" in print! To do so, they would have had to have been interested in a piece by Calame entitled "Can 'Magazines' of the Times Subsidize News Coverage?" Then they would have had to read 15 paragraphs of that particular snooze-fest. And then they would have had to have been enticed to read still more Calame drivel by the obfuscatory sub-headline, "Banking Data - A Mea Culpa."...I'm a political junkie and if I had read those words in print I would have assumed the text that followed was going to be some boring crap about our nation's banking system. I estimate the number of print readers who read Calame's "apology" at, approximately, his mother.
I'm inviting feedback from our readers in the press on this one. Google News tells me this correction hasn't made the rounds, despite the fact that the original NYT story was widely
So, now that you know, when are we likely to see it?
Maybe the recent treason charge gave them pause.
Barely related:
Can anyone name and provide evidence of a single American major newspaper editorial board that opposed the invasion of Iraq? The fact is that the MSM in America - including the NY Times - was nearly 100% unanimous in favour of the Iraq invasion. Something to keep in mind...
Hmm... I'm reminded of the book "How To Talk To a Liberal". This post could be inserted right into it... along with the other shocking stuff about the NYT. I can't believe the NYT continues to exist. It's such a scandalous enterprise. Hell, "Hustler" is a better publication... at least it doesn't pretend to be a serious publication!
Malkin has a very good point. I started reading the article but got bored with all the stuff on "magazines" subsidizing news and never got to the juicy bit at the end.
Quite dishonest--that should have been the lead, and very disappointing from the "Public Editor".
Mark
Ottawa
During WWII could any newspaper in the US have carried on the way the NYTimes carries on; and even had they not been charged with treason, could any of its editors of writers have walked the streets without fear of being lynched? Not bloody likely.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061023/oconnor_rerolling_061023/20061023?hub=Canada
"Of the 2,300 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, only 500 are actually engaged in combat."
...Right at the bottom. Seems like the same sort of hidden fact. For months we have heard that all the canadian soilders are only fighting. 24/7 if you can believe it.
Right Barcs..you believe whatever you like..ever heard the phrase rotating through the line? If not,than what you think you read isn't necessarily true.
I think the recent treason charge might be right on.Now they can say they had second thoughts, so every things ok now it was a almost mistake to print it.
I can't believe the NYT continues to exist
Here's my take, that miserable vicious little rag does have a following with the limousine liberals and the smarmy self-congratulating literati in the NE. Take them away, take their high end advertisers and you've got nothing more than a local rag.
Their days as "paper of record" are long gone. They've got a huge trust problem. Editorially, the entrenched Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman?.....gag, there are no bigger, more boring losers in journalism.
I hope they are dead and gone in five years. Google NYT and NWS(Fox) stock charts just for fun. Wall Street and the marketplace have voted.
Take the taxpayer subsidies away from the CBC and the BBC, they would fail too in the marketplace.
As Lincoln observed..."You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
The NYT can't die fast enough.
Good point, Barcs.
Perhaps if you examined the organization of the RCR Battle Group, you might 'see' where that number came from. Then you should account for the Gen Fraser's HQ, and the second line support elements; and then there are the personnel of the PRT. There are probably some troops who are not working 24/7, merely 12/7; except for those occasions when they have to work 24/7. Rest assured that even those few 500 who are fighting 24/7 do get occasional breaks to drop by Timmy's, before going out and killing more Taleban 'insurgents'.
Cheers
Unrelated - open question:
During Ottawa's A-Channel broadcast this evening, one of the guests asked a question towards all three mayoral candidates regarding the "meddling" of John Baird on Ottawa's government grant of $200 million towards the Ligth Rail Project. Does this question have any possible answer worthy of merit towards deciding whom the best candidate may be in terms of running this city efficiently and fiscally? Or is it simply a politically biased question revealing one's political stance?
DrD - these are the same immoral idiots that had Walter Duranty praising Stalin and minimizing his politcally driven famines. He lied. The NYT has a long history of duplicity and anti-American agendas.
I gave up writing letters to their editor since 9/11. They would rather fall on their socialist, anti-American sword than do fair and balanced reporting.
I'm waiting for Al Jazeera to buy their remaining assets when they finally hit Chapter 11. (If their is a God, please, let that happen, if You have a sense of humor.)
It may be that there is no forthcoming apology that will satisfy you, Kate. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen an earnest apology from you following a post that later was shown to be premature, misleading, or factually incorrect.
You may be able to point me to a few, though - I certainly could've missed more than one.
Ayn,
Why would you equate a (phantom) article by a blogger, albeit a very good one, with a front page article, by America's largest newspaper, that deliberately undermined the WOT?
Are you a liberal?
What I find most amazing about this is not the perfidy of the NYT-we are used to that- but that Calame said they did it (they compromised national security) to get back at Bush because they think he has "viciously" criticized them. Which proves these Bush bashers are both hypersensitive and delusional. For all the good it does, the Times might as well have been taken over by the infantile Daily Kos.
LOL. NYTimes!
Their evil tendrils have even tried to reach down here.
I got a subscription call from them one night, and I almost choked until I spit up LOL.
I said in a very unsensitive and aggressive tone,
"Lady, do you have any idea of where your call is being placed to?"
She said she did.
I replied, "I'm not gay, and I'm happily married."
She redeemed herself somewhat. Turned out she was working on the Pataki campaign in New York. She was just doing the subscription gig to pull in a few bucks.
I forgave her, but I most emphatically insisted that she "go and sin no more."
I still occasionally wonder if I've gotten the taint completely off of me.
this is one of the many reasons why I trust the internet infinitely more than any other news source, there are just so many more checks and balances here than in the MSM. Ayn, it's people like Kate you should thank, though I doubt you ever will until you can finally see outside of your blinders.
Ayn, do you call a very carefully, deliberately hidden, unclearly-worded, almost-impossible-to-notice "apology" an apology?
Kate's made errors before and has done very prominent posts to apologize for them. I remember. The words "mea culpa" have appeared in at least one post title.
Hmm... you wouldn't be a liberal by any chance, would you? You wouldn't be defending the unethical/treasonous/dhimmi NYT, would you?
No, I wouldn’t call myself a liberal. That term is pretty slippery anyway – I think you’d get 15 different answers if you were to ask 15 different people what it means.
Kelly, I’m surprised to hear that you think bloggers are subject to more checks and balances than the msm. Do you mean checks and balances through feedback provided in comments?
I wonder why you feel that I’m wearing blinders. I made two statements – first, that I wouldn’t expect anything satisfying in the way of an apology from NYT or anyone else, and second, that I haven’t seen anything of that sort here. I also conceded in very plain terms that (with respect to my second statement) I may have missed one or more.
Ayn: Do you mind picking something out that you think Kate should apologize to you for, or does your hyperequality relativism force her to create a list for you.
Hyperequality relativism? Isn't that the branch of science behind the atomic bomb? :)
I think it would take me a while to find a post that I think needs addressing. If you've been a faithful reader you may have a few in mind that you're expecting me to attack, I don't know. The Iranian yellow badge story is a possibility, but I haven't gone back to see where fault was ultimately assigned there.
In any case, if in fact there are no old posts here that you expected me to attack, and everything posted has been fair, then my initial remark is misplaced and I must apologize.
But if you yourself were at the helm of a large publication that had at some point attacked libs/dippers/lefties/moonbats in such a way that was later revealed to be unfair or factually incorrect, would your retraction or apology be any more prominent than what you felt you could get away with? I'm not sure mine would.