NYT’s Calame: Oops. Our Bad.

The New York Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, initially supported the publication of the confidential national-security program that tracked terrorist financing through the Swift banking program. Now, at the end of his column and far past the “jump”, Calame acknowledges that the Times made the wrong decision:

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.
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 story here is that there was no story. Calame comes to this conclusion a little late, and in this case, it’s not better late than never. First, Calame puts this mea culpa at the bottom of his column, after a discussion of advertising in the newspaper industry — another decision that calls into question the editorial competence of the Paper of Record. Second, this comes months after the revelation of the program and the damage it did, both to national-security efforts and to the Bush administration. An “oops” by Calame hardly addresses either.
Reading his effort here, Calame makes it clear that the publication of this story amounted to either incompetence or malice; no other explanation works. The Times knew that no laws had been broken, nor did they ever find any evidence that program officials abused the information gathered. The Times used mutually exclusive arguments to answer their critics after its publication; on one hand, they trumpeted the program as a secret that could lead to abuse (which they never found), and on the other they argued that everyone knew about it, including the terrorists. It took Calame almost four months to discover this rather transparent contradiction.
Calame says that his intial support came from an impulse to protect journalism from the “vicious criticism” of the Bush administration. “Vicious”? I’d like Calame to define that. The administration rightly condemned the Times for risking their ability to track terrorist financing, but I don’t recall the administration calling anyone “traitorous”, for instance, although plenty of bloggers did. And what kind of ombudsman decides to defend his paper simply because all the right people got angry? That’s a mighty thin line of argument, and Calame should be embarrassed to make that admission on the pages of his own paper.
Michelle Malkin responds to this lame excuse:

Every last bit of that “vicious” criticism was deserved. Stop making excuses. It’s Bush hatred that led to the reckless publication of the story. It’s journalistic hubris that prevents the rest of Calame’s colleagues from admitting the truth.

Instead of acting as Chief Apologist, Calame should take his job a little more seriously in the future. The Times blew an important national-security program just to pump up its anti-Bush credentials, regardless of the fact that the program operated within the law and never abused the information it gathered. Calame dislikes the administration as much as the rest of the people at the New York Times, and in the guise of detached analysis endorsed the publication of a non-story in his zeal to undermine the White House using any means at their disposal. Everyone else knew that this story had no merit; it took the Times and its public editor four months to figure it out.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the New York Times.
UPDATE: Patterico credits Calame with honesty, but still thinks he should resign.

23 thoughts on “NYT’s Calame: Oops. Our Bad.”

  1. Byron Calame Should Resign

    Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, admits today that the paper made a mistake when it decided to run the Swift terrorist finance tracking story. (Via Michelle Malkin.) Calame had previously defended the decision in a column that, …

  2. Mad at George Bush? Get even, give away our intelligence secrets

    Or so says Ombudsman Bryan Calame at the New York Times. Michelle Malkin calls it Un. Freaking. Believable! It really is, isn’t it? The arrogance is mindboggling. What the heck are you talking about Sara? Remember the Swift Program designed to monitor …

  3. “I hated Bush so much I couldn’t do my job…”

    That would be NY Times Public Editor (used to be called “ombudsman”) Brian Calame as he makes excuses for a much-too-late admission of malicious journalism. He writes:
    My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish i…

  4. Oops!

    The Tehran New York Times public editor Byron Calame finds it within himself to admit that maybe, just maybe, outing a completely legal and non-abused classified national security terrorist-fighting program might have been a mistake! He does, however, …

  5. George Bush Made Me Do It

    Even thought it WAS legal…and NO ONE’s personal data was compromised…and maybe terrorists really DIDN’T already know about it…I was just so durned mad at the mean way Bush and his guys talk about my newspaper. So in an emotional,…

  6. NYT public editor Byron Calame now admits paper was wrong to publish info on banking-data surveillance program (aka SWIFT)

    Patterico thinks Calame, whose admission is published here, should resign.
    While I can understand the sentiment behind Patterico’s call, it’s going to take a lot more changes at the NYT besides a potential Calame resignation to get them t…

  7. Resign, hell! Fetch a rope.

    NYT’s Calame: Oops. Our Bad.Ed Morrissey The New York Times’ public editor, Byron Calame, initially supported the publication of the confidential national-security program that tracked terrorist financing through the Swift banking program. Now, at the …

  8. NYT Public Editor Admits Publication Wrong

    It takes three months to realize that these stories undermine US national security? That there was no illegal activity on the part of the US government? Or that the NYT should have held the stories because of the beneficial data that these programs c…

  9. Bush hatred trumps national security

    If you weren’t angry then (and you should have been), this should do the trick.  Just saw this at Captain’s Quarters re: The NY Times’s decision to publish a June 23 article on a secret banking-data surveillance program:
    The Times knew t…

  10. Belated realizations

    The damage having been done, this admission garners the American public nothing. Introspection in the face of monumental arrogance is by no means commendable. The Times took upon itself a decision….

  11. Peas In A Pod

    Why, the BBC and the New York Times, of course. (props to Ace of Spades) First, the BBC. At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is

  12. Peas In A Pod

    Why, the BBC and the New York Times, of course. (props to Ace of Spades) First, the BBC. At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is

  13. Bush Made Me Do It

    The first thought that popped into my head when I read this non-apology was the scene where Gilda Radners “Emily Litella” apologizes to Jane Curtin….well sort of:
    Bookmark to:

  14. Peas In A Pod

    Why, the BBC and the New York Times, of course. (props to Ace of Spades) First, the BBC. At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is

  15. Peas In A Pod

    Why, the BBC and the New York Times, of course. (props to Ace of Spades) First, the BBC. At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is

  16. NYTs Editor Now Regrets Printing Leak

    As a few in the blogosphere are pointing out, New York Times editor Byron Calame included a “my bad” piece in yesterday’s paper. Not where your average reader would see it, mind you, but it’s in there:
    My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s

  17. NYT Public Editor Brian Calame Should Resign

    I was determined to take the whole weekend off from this bloody blog, so I let a Sunday blog swarm pass me by. Time to play catch up.
    Background
    Back in July, the New York Times decided to run a story on a “secret” government terrorist-f…

  18. NY Times Published National Security Secrets To Get Back At the Bush Administration

    We should be thankful that the New York Times decided to undermine the security of the United States in recognition of the hypersensitive fears of foreign opponents of the Bush administration.

  19. NYTimes Would Rather Ask for Forgiveness than Perm

    Excuses, excuses, excuses. This is a pathetic attempt to ask for forgiveness since the Times didn’t ask for permission, but Mr. Calame should be aware of one thing: Be forgiven, but there are still concequences for your actions. Forgiveness on our pa…

  20. NY Times Editor Admits Was Wrong to Disclose Bank Data Surveillance Program

    A New York Times public editor, Byron Calame, has admitted — very belatedly, and too late to correct the harm that the New York Times has done — that the New York Times was wrong to disclose the secret SWIFT international funds transfer surveillance …

  21. NY Times Editor Admits Was Wrong to Disclose Bank Data Surveillance Program

    A New York Times public editor, Byron Calame, has admitted — very belatedly, and too late to correct the harm that the New York Times has done — that the New York Times was wrong to disclose the secret SWIFT international funds transfer surveillance …

  22. Oops, We’re Sorry

    The New York Times’ “Public Editor” (aka ombudsman) has had a change of heart. He’s decided that maybe the NYT shouldn’t have published all that information about the efforts to track terrorist financing earlier this year after all. And wonder of won…

Comments are closed.