NYT Holds Taliban Story At White House’s Request: ‘Not A Hard Call’

by Glynnis MacNicol | 3:58 pm, February 16th, 2010

» 9 comments

It’s very tempting to be sarcastic and say something along the lines of this is how serious journalism works. Except this is how serious journalism works. If you are a regular reader of the New York Times you probably opened your paper (let’s be serious, you clicked on the website or followed a Twitter alert) and read their big breaking story on how the Taliban’s top military commander “was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces.” (Alternately, you may have heard about it via Glenn Beck this morning.) Emphasis in the above quote is mine. Turns out the Times had the story a few days ago and held it at the behest of the White House. Times managing editor Bill Keller appeared on the WNYC/PRI show The Takeaway today, to explain how and why the Times held the story.

Well, actually, we called them [The White House], Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins had the story pretty well nailed down last Thursday and they took it to the White House for comment, of course, as we routinely do, and the folks at the White House said, well hold on for a second we need to talk to you about this, and several of the people from our Washington bureau went over to the White House and sat down with people from the National Security Council and the press office and they said that they were pretty sure that Mullah Baladar’s colleagues in the Taliban were not yet aware that he was in custody. I don’t know the details of it, but they thought it had been a clean snatch and they were afraid once the word got out, other Taliban officials would go deeper underground or take measures to cover their tracks, so they asked us to hold off for a while.

Keller explains why they decided to hold this time around (can you ever really be sure the administration is not pulling your strings in their own best interests) and not others…interesting that he says this time was a no-brainer.

No, we get asked to withhold information, not often but from time to time sometimes it’s a no-brainer, you know we have reporters embedded in military operations — obviously they don’t file information that would put troops at risk. W’ve had other stories that were much more controversial where we decided that we would publish. This one was not, honestly, a very hard call. Obviously we were eager to break the story, it represented a lot of resourceful reporting by Mark and Dexter, but there was no obvious public interest reason to rush the story into print and you know we are responsible people; we didn’t want to compromise what sounded like a possible intelligence coup.

Keller also notes the paper’s relationship with this White House is less “acrimonious” than with the last one. The entire interview is interesting, and a good reminder how much power what we now refer to as ‘old-school’ journalism wields: “There are others [stories] where to this day we can’t talk about things we’ve held out because they would, for example endanger agents who are working in foreign countries.” Full interview here.

Bill Keller, Dexter Filkins, New York Times, NPR, Obama Administration, Taliban, The State of Journalism, The Takeaway

http://www.abramsresearch.com/ Dan Abrams

Bravo to the Times.

To those who say the Times never thinks about the best interest of the country. . . well I guess this won’t fit well into your narrative. To those on the other side who will claim to be horrified that the Times did not report all the news that’s fit to print, rest assured that this was a tough decision for them. But the right one. This should be a proud day for those of us somewhere in the middle who care first and foremost about the safety and security of our country but also appreciate the significance of journalistic integrity and independence to our society as whole.
PureFreedom

When the Times does something right like this, I cheer them on,
But when they run front page about the Navy Seals slapping a terrorist and condemning the Seals and not the terrorist, Then they still prove to me they are still not in touch with most Americans.
Jim R

I agree with Dan, kudos to professional, responsible journalism. My other questions for Mr. Keller can await another day.
nwjw

I’m supposed to believe this right? Any other stories held at the White House request? You’re taking them at their word without fact checking? The NYT doesn’t show any partisanship so may not be completely believable right? So if, say another news organization would’ve held this it would’ve been ok Dan/Glynnis? Doubt it!
Please, stop hacking for the NYT. Thought you were better than this…but then again, Keith did call out Dan’s daddy recently…and Dan needs to, well, you know…make amends to Keef.
TfT

“Keller also notes the paper’s relationship with this White House is less “acrimonious” than with the last one.”

So in other words, reporting on items that may impact national security or the safety of our troops or giving aide and comfort to the enemy is dependent on which party holds the White House?

Nothing like openly admitting that we report based on our liberal biases.

Another plagiarism scandal at the NYTimes, this time with a business reporter. Silence on climategate and selective reporting on the key issues of the day.
Facebook User

I find it humorous (sarcastic) that NOW the NYT does the bidding of the White House without question. NOW they want to be seen as “patriotic”. NOW they are concerned with national security.

Sorry NYT — too little, too late. When you first started publishing articles that violated our national security in spite of how many American patriots would be killed because of this…you lost me.

Decades of an excellent reputation down the tubes. You have a looong way to climb before you get that reputation back.
http://www.abramsresearch.com/ Dan Abrams

TfT I would assume what Keller means is that they trust this administration more when they are told its an issue of national security instead of being told by the previous administration that everything is an issue of national security.
Jim R

I would just point out for those memory-impaired partisans continuing the fallacy of a liberal media, the NYT also held off on reporting a story about the Bush Administration illegally spying (data mining) on Americans for over a year at their request.

It’s intellectually lazy to continually claim liberal bias in the media just because they report one way or another on a particular story. Look at the Washington Post, still being demonized for exposing Republican criminality a generation ago, in spite of a full stable of right wing editorial writers and columnists that always figure out a way something is great for Republicans and John McCain.
TfT

Dan – When it comes to the NYTimes I assume nothing. I doubt seriously they “trust this President more” but we all know and can acknowledge that the NYTimes campaigned for Obama, so they will always do whatever it takes to make sure he stays in the most positive light.

I don’t recall the “everything is a national security issue” line with the previous administration, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Keller et al put that line out there. As I have said on many occasions, its the NYTimes and that means GIGO.