Just now from former VP Cheney’s speech (think this will make it into any of the post-speech coverage/chatter?):
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
UPDATE: More Cheney on Times:
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.
Strange how CJR made NO MENTION last week of Pelosi's stumbles on the "Toture memo," debate.
Some of us partisans might start to agree that CJR is not "Speaking Truth to Power," but another Democratic Press shill protecting Democrats.
Can you prove me wrong?
#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Thu 21 May 2009 at 02:31 PM
JSF, last time I looked, Pelosi isn't a journalist, and the story doesn't involve deception by or to journalists.
Meanwhile, your own partisan colors are showing.
#2 Posted by Stephen Downes, CJR on Fri 22 May 2009 at 06:20 PM
Cheney is dead nuts on ... James Risen and Eric Lichtblau should have been put in front of a firing squad for what they did.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 22 May 2009 at 07:17 PM
Mr. Downes:
I am a partisan -- I fight it haughty when the modern press and some their watchers (i.e. CJR) act as partisans.
I brought up pelosi for one reason only -- she flipped on a single issue a few times until she asked the PRESS to stop asking her questions.
And for a week, CJR found no reason to report on how the Pelosi/press issue was affecting the "Torture memos/Truth Commission" Debate. That is sin by omission.
And as someone who has been a a partisan on both sides of the Political line (Liberal Dem in NYC to Conservative republican in CA, now moving back to DC), I do not like it when "so called" press watchdogs pick a side.
IT IS NOT CJR'S (OR ANY OTHER MEDIA) TO PICK A SIDE!
Don't believe me? How many papers are in the black today? There is corralation. I would to see CJR discuss that.
#4 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 23 May 2009 at 12:40 PM