-
UPDATED: Some of the news that's fit to print
December 20, 2005 |
Advertisement
Update at bottom...
Webmedia guru Dan Gillmor believes the New York Times has some 'splaining to do for having withheld the information that our government was eavesdropping on American citizens. He's not alone.
The Times' editor Bill Keller released this explanation (emphasis mine):
"the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed. ... As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."You'll forgive us for our skepticism, but what in the past actions of these "officials" warranted trust? In other words: fool me once shame on...um...won't get fooled again. But they did, maybe. See, we don't know, because the Times has apparently caught the drool-inducing Democracy-crushing lexicon of DC politicians.
Here they are on why they've suddenly decided to publish...
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
On JFK's 95th Birthday, Stephen King -- Like Many Writers Before -- Has a Theory About Kennedy's Assassination
