WSJ editorial twisted logic to blast NY Times, defend WSJ reporting on financial surveillance
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial twisted logic by attacking The New York Times for publishing a June 23 article on a Treasury Department program designed to monitor terrorists' international financial transactions while simultaneously defending the Journal's own contemporaneous article on the Treasury Department program. In fact, there appears to be no relevant basis for differentiating between the two reports.
In a June 30 editorial titled "Fit and Unfit to Print," The Wall Street Journal twisted logic by attacking The New York Times for publishing a June 23 article on a Treasury Department program designed to monitor terrorists' international financial transactions while simultaneously defending the Journal's own contemporaneous article (subscription only) on the Treasury Department program. In fact, there appears to be no relevant basis for differentiating between the two reports; while the Times noted quoted experts raising legal and privacy concerns that the Journal omitted, the Times and Journal articles revealed nearly identical details about how the financial surveillance program operated -- the basis critics have cited for alleging that the Times report threatens national security. Moreover, as the Journal editorial itself noted, both newspapers were pursuing the story for "some time" before their respective articles were published, refuting the suggestion that the Journal merely pursued the story because its publication by the Times was imminent.
The Times and Journal articles revealed many of the same details of the Treasury Department program, in which the Department tapped into a huge database of international financial transactions maintained by a banking consortium known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT):
|
Times article |
Journal article |
|
Describes SWIFT as a "gatekeeper," which can track "[c]ustomers' names, bank account numbers and other identifying information can be retrieved." |
Describes SWIFT as a "gatekeeper," which contains "identities of sender and recipients, the amount being transferred, the account numbers use and intermediate banks." |
|
"Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift." |
Headline of the Journal article: "Since 9/11, U.S. Has Used Subpoenas to Access Records From Fund-Transfer System" |
|
Quoted Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department: "We are not on a fishing expedition." |
Quoted Treasury Secretary John W. Snow: "It is not a fishing expedition." |
|
"[T]he program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia." |
"U.S. officials say the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been highly successful both in leading to the apprehension of terrorism suspects and in thwarting terrorist operations. People familiar with the program said, for example, that it yielded useful information on the bombings last July 7 in London." |
|
"Underlying the government's legal analysis was the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which Mr. Bush invoked after the 9/11 attacks." |
"He [Levey] said the subpoenas are based on a longstanding U.S. law dealing with economic sanctions, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act." |
Moreover, both newspapers had apparently assigned reporters to cover the story. While the Journal editorial suggested that the Journal published its report on the financial surveillance program as a result of the Bush administration's approaching the paper with information about the program after the Times had said that the story was "going to become public anyway," the editorial also mentioned that the Journal -- and not just the Times -- was looking to publish a report on the Bush administration's use of SWIFT. Writing that the Bush administration had approached Journal reporter Glenn Simpson when it became clear that Times article was about to go to print, the editorial also noted that Simpson "has been working the terror finance beat for some time, including asking questions about the operations of Swift." Thus, it appears that the Journal had been pursuing a story on the financial surveillance program well before its June 23 report appeared.
Moreover, the Journal's defense of the paper's judgment in publishing the story is largely nonsensical. The Journal editorial claimed that its paper's report was "straighter" than the Times' because the Journal, unlike the Times, did not pursue "a violation-of-privacy angle." Since the editorial also noted that the Journal had used Bush administration "talking points" in the article, it appears that the Journal editorial believes a "straighter" report is one that uncritically publishes the administration's views while not noting the fact that outside American experts had concerns about the program (although the Journal article did report that disclosure of the program "may be controversial in Europe and within the world banking system").
From the Journal editorial:
[T]he Administration decided that, in the interest of telling a more complete and accurate story, they would declassify a series of talking points about the program. They discussed those with the Times the next day, June 22.
Around the same time, Treasury contacted Journal reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information. Mr. Simpson has been working the terror finance beat for some time, including asking questions about the operations of Swift, and it is a common practice in Washington for government officials to disclose a story that is going to become public anyway to more than one reporter. Our guess is that Treasury also felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle; on our reading of the two June 23 stories, he did.
The Journal editorial had factual problems as well. The editorial ignored the Journal's own news reporting to assert that the Times' decision to publish its story alerted terrorists of U.S. efforts to track their international financial transactions. The editorial accused the Times of "expos[ing] a major weapon in the U.S. arsenal against terror financing," and dismissed Times executive editor Bill Keller's claim that it has already "been widely reported ... that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror," claiming: "The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia." But while the editorial attempted to separate the article in the Journal from the one in the Times, it failed to note that both articles reported that administration plans to monitor financing have long been public; as Media Matters for America has noted, the Bush administration has publicly stated many times that it would track terrorists' international financial statements. From the Journal's June 23 article:
While U.S. officials had never discussed the tracking program publicly until yesterday, they have repeatedly discussed in broad terms their efforts to engage in surveillance of cross-border financial activity around the world and have widely publicized the fruits of such surveillance in efforts to blacklist corrupt financial institutions.
Furthermore, the Journal editorial claimed that Keller's "argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith." But it is a "leap" Keller did not make; Keller, like the Journal story reporting the SWIFT program, said the U.S. has never hidden its intentions to track financial records, and that the terrorists "know this." But Keller did not claim that the terrorists specifically knew about the government's use of SWIFT. From his June 25 letter explaining his rationale for publishing the story:
It has been widely reported -- indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department -- that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.
Additionally, the Journal editorial defended the paper against those claiming that it should have declined to publish the article. According to the editorial:
Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized.
The editorial's defense of its paper's actions -- claiming that the government never told them not to publish -- rests on the unlikely scenario that the government would, in fact, approach a newspaper with information, and then urge them not to publish it.
... simply because these rightwingers at the Journal SAY it's different.
The only difference seems to be that the Journal is a favored publication of the Administration, while the NYTimes is slated for destruction by the Administration.
Choosing to pursue destruction based on a story duplicated in the Journal, without making similar claims about the damage the Journal article might have caused, only shows the difference to be purely of a PARTISAN nature.
It's NOT different, the impact or lack of impact of the stories. The only thing different is that the Administration wants a target, and is selective, wishing not to tar "a friend" with the same brush as bashing a perceived foe. The hypocritical double standard is blatant.
The Administration is so blind, they cannot see that by NOT including their pals at the Journal in their attacks, for an identical story, they are exonerating the Times.
Rule #1: The WSJ is always right. Rule #2: If the WSJ would happen to be wrong, apply rule #1.
The Treasury Dept asked the New York Times repeatedly not to publish.
The Treasury Dept never asked the Wall Street Journal not to publish. Actually they gave them the details of the story, knowing that the Times would publish.
That was clever though, hiding that info until the very end of the article, and then confusing the issue with that nonsensical last paragraph. You apparently succeeded with at least two readers.
I am surprised that there are not more comments on this story because this is the story that proves that this whole controversy is nothing more than an attempt to shut down the NYT. Administration officials talked to the WSJ and the WSJ reprted essentially the same story, yet the NYT should be prosecuted for treason. Then the WSJ runs a silly editorial to "prove" that their reporting the same story is completely different, because they are friends of the administration and were not suggesting that this program involved a violation of privacy. So the problem is not reporting the story, but suggesting that the administration was acting improperly. We are now dealing with a blatant attack on a free press, and the entire right wing sound machine is geared up to suppress dissent. If the press caves in to this pressure, then progressives will get creamed in November because the press will not even try to fairly cover the races--every story will be "Republicans good, Democrats evil." If the administration prevails in intimidating the press from criticizing any actions the administration takes, the takeover of our democracy will be complete.
WSJ has it's nose firmly planted up the Bush administration' rectal cavity. NYT has journalistic standards and maintains the promise that the media will be the watchdog over government. Of course in this day and age arguing with the king may just lead to the guillatine.
1), MMFA says this "In fact, there appears to be no relevant basis for differentiating between the two reports; "
hmm..interesting, then it gives the exact justification for "differentiating between the two reports" -------"while the Times noted quoted experts raising legal and privacy concerns that the Journal omitted,"
That "differentiation" is why the Journal editorial labeled their report as "straighter". Because they only reported on the facts involved the program itself; they did not examine the legality or privacy issues associated with it, but just the specific details of how the program operated. Whereas, the NY Times tried to give the impression that this was an illegal/immoral program due to privacy issues.
2) MMFA says "Moreover, as the Journal editorial itself noted, both newspapers were pursuing the story for "some time" before their respective articles were published, refuting the suggestion that the Journal merely pursued the story because its publication by the Times was imminent."
Who ever made the suggestion that the Journal "merely pursued the story because its publication by the Times was imminent"??? Only MMFA. What the editorial said was that, they decided to publish the story because they had been briefed by the government and found out that NYT was publishing soon. There is no contradiction here. They have someone on the terror beat who looks at financial tracking methods. There was no decision to publish anything until they got a call from the government giving them information about it. which brings us to MMFA third completely twisted logical conclusion
3) "The editorial's defense of its paper's actions -- claiming that the government never told them not to publish -- rests on the unlikely scenario that the government would, in fact, approach a newspaper with information, and then urge them not to publish it."
Obviously the government would not approach a newspaper with information and then tell them NOT to publish it. Most reasonable people (except R.D. & S.S.M) would understand this. However, the NY Times was told by the govt. NOT to publish the information BEFORE the govt. approached the newspaper. The govt only approached NYT and WSJ AFTER they demanded that the NYT NOT publish the information and the NYT decided to publish anyways. That is when they decided to provide information and approach newspapers. That is the problem in the MMFA hypothetical backwards scenario. Might I suggest an amending to that final sentence.
"The editorial's defense of its paper's actions -- claiming that the government never told them not to publish -- rests on the likely scenario that a newspaper being approached by the government and being given information would assume that it is ok to publish that information---Since that newspaper was not told by the government or by fellow newspapers the circumstances regarding the publishing of such information. "
The argument against the Times was that classified information was revealed. And the information revealed was duplicated by the WSJ. Your argument that the fact that the New York Times cited experts raising doubts about the program's legality is very weird.
Experts opinions do not constitute classified information.
John Snow said: "It's for that reason that these disclosures of the particular sources and methods are so regrettable."
I repeate, your comment was weird.
Keep in mind that the day the story broke, Tony Snow was asked about it repeatedly in his daily breifing and did not complain that the story had damaged national security. It was only after the weekend (and I'm sure a little Rovian polling) that the White House changed its tune and came out blasting on Monday. The WSJ picked up the talking point and did its part even to the extent of trying to claim they somehow didn't harm national security by reporting the same story.
And to the comment that there was a difference in the two stories because the WSJ did not include outside expert opinion quotes and the NYT did- that is the difference between reporting and printing the press release. The WSJ did as it was told by the administration and the Times had actually practiced journalism.