« Bush "understands" your outrage | Main | Bush 2004-2005: "[A] wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed." »

December 20, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200d83459f30169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Snoopgate": Is the timing political?:

» Timing the Times from Political Animal
TIMING THE TIMES....Last Friday, while I was visiting the Washington Monthly offices, my colleague Amy Sullivan got a call from the Joe Scarborough show asking her to join them to discuss the NSA bugging story the New York Times had... [Read More]

Comments

thank god we had that accountability moment.

Man, I'm not a hater of the "MSM" as many on the right and some on the left are. But I don't understand this at all. Don't they think the American people would want to know about this while they're in the process of deciding who to vote for? Don't they have an obligation to tell this story if they possibly can at all? This is no minor revelation; this is something we have the right to know, and have had the right to know ever since the program was instituted. I really hope they have a good justifcation for this.

Alexander,
they DON'T have a good justification for this.

You can start hating the MSM, now.

Hey, I tried to trackback but apparently, it didn't get trough. So here's the link:

http://spvgg.blogspot.com/2005/12/panopticum-legal-analysis-of-nsa.html

Bush on dictatorship now:

"To say 'unchecked power' basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject."

Bush on dictatorship then:

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
- President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
- Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.

The NYT has lost all my faith. I used to be a loyal reader. When a newspaper has an explosive story, that story by definition will influence an election. Publishing something unflattering to an incumbent politician BEFORE an election necessarily hurts the incumbent.

Publishing something unflattering to an incumbent AFTER and election necessarily helps the incumbent.

So what is a newspaper to do? A newspaper's job is to publish the news, not sit on it. Either way, one side or the other is going to benefit and the other will be hurt so in the absence of any other countervailing reasoning, the duty of a newspaper should be to publish. Telling the American people that our government is spying on us is not the same as telling us HOW they are spying on us so national security issues are non-existent.

Poor Daniel Okrent. "Damned if we do, damned if we don't." Boo hoo. I have a question for Okrent. Why do you give a damn? Why should you?

Yeah co-opted by Bush again. Still, they didn't wait for the book to come out directly. It's just that their own reporters would have scooped themselves. Hate it when that happens.

It seems pretty clear, considering how close it was, that the decision of the Times to delay this story determined the outcome of the election.

The comments to this entry are closed.