The new "public editor" of the NY Times, Byron Calame, has concluded that the NYT was slow on the uptake regarding the "Downing Street Memo," a secret document containing minutes of a high-level intelligence meeting regarding preparations for the Iraq war. Although the British press reported the contents of the memo on May 1, in the run-up to the British election, the NYT didn’t write about its impact here until this past Friday. Mr. Calame writes:
key editors simply were slow to recognize that the minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue – their authenticity undisputed – probably needed to be assessed in some fashion for readers. Even if the editors decided it was old news that Mr. Bush had decided in July 2002 to attack Iraq or that the minutes didn’t provide solid evidence that the administration was manipulating intelligence, I think Times readers deserved to know that earlier than today’s article.
Righto, Mr. Calame. Really, the importance of this memo was evident to anyone who bothered to read what it said – even we here at this humble Mass.-focused blog thought it was pretty obvious that the memo showed Bush to be (as we delicately put it) a big fat liar. And the editors’ explanations for not covering the story, as provided to Mr. Calame, are not terribly convincing. The editors gave basically two reasons for their decision. First, they seem to be saying that everyone already knew that Bush was lying about when he decided to attack Iraq. But that’s silly – just saying that "everyone knew" it is a lot different from having a British intelligence memo that actually shows it to be true. Second, they say that the head of British Intelligence’s conclusion that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" wasn’t proof that that was true. Please. It may not be rock-solid proof, but it’s certainly "news" that the head of British intelligence thought that was the case.
In short, America’s "newspaper of record" blew the story on Iraq yet again. What a huge failure on the part of this incredibly influential media outlet.
This story has legs and The NY Times has finally figured that out, as has The Washington Post. Knight-Ridder is already on it. If they’re smart, all of them will have people enroute to London.The (London) Times reported today (May 22) that Congressman Conyers is sending an investigative team there.I haven’t spoken with anyone who isn’t outraged about the revelations in the report. An op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (May 20) turned a flamethrower on the Bush Administration
The motivations of the news organizations intrigues me. On the one hand, are they not picking up on this stuff because they’re afraid or even pandering to this administration? Because they certainly didn’t pander to Clinton (every scandal, as I recall, was first page news, whether or not it was truthful). The retaliatory nature of Bush and his cronies is notorious, but isn’t it the job of our media to stand up for truth in reporting? Are they really so afraid of the right-wing attack machine?On the other hand, people argue that the media is corporate, always looking at their bottom line, and lazy (because real reporting costs money), that they feel that dry policy stuff doesn’t sell, or “it’s old news” as they say about these Downing Street Minutes (by the way, it is NOT a memo, they are actual minutes of a meeting – an important distinction). But I think the American people would start to come back to reading/watching the news in droves if they knew they were getting the real scoop.I’m not sure which I believe. Maybe it’s both in combination. But the sheer disconnect between what’s really happening and what’s being reported blows my mind, and something has got to change, or this republic, like the one that’s in the movie theatres right now, is not going to last. That might seem like I’m being overdramatic, but all indications point to it…