Why Times Ran Wiretap Story, Defying
Bush
NY Times
By Gabriel Sherman
December 26, 2005 edition
On the afternoon of Dec. 15, New York Times executives put the paper's
preferred First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams, on standby. In the pipeline for
the next day's paper was a story that President George W. Bush had specifically
asked the paper not to run, revealing that the National Security Agency had
been wiretapping Americans without using warrants.
The President had made the request in person, nine days before, in an Oval
Office meeting with publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., executive editor Bill
Keller and Washington bureau chief Phil Taubman, according to Times sources
familiar with the meeting.
That Dec. 6 session with Mr. Bush was the culmination of a 14-month struggle
between The Times and the White House—and a parallel struggle behind the
scenes at The Times—over the wiretapping story. In the end, Mr. Abrams'
services were not needed. The piece made it to press without further
incident.
But the story, which began with reporter James Risen and was eventually
written by Mr. Risen and Eric Lichtblau, very nearly didn't reach that endgame
at all. In one paragraph, the piece disclosed that the White House had objected
to the article—"arguing that it could jeopardize continuing
investigations"—and that The Times had "delayed publication for a
year."
In fact, multiple Times sources said that the story had come up more than a
year ago—specifically, before the 2004 election. After The Times decided
not to publish it at that time, Mr. Risen went away on book leave, and his
piece was shelved and regarded as dead, according to a Times source.
"I'm not going to talk about the back story to the story," Mr. Keller said
by phone on Dec. 20. "Maybe another time and another subject."
The direct executive-branch involvement echoed a legendary—and
notorious— episode in Times history, when then–Washington bureau
chief James (Scotty) Reston and publisher Orvil Dryfoos, acceding to official
pressure, quashed coverage of the specifics of the impending Bay of Pigs
invasion in 1961. The infighting over that decision (and the obvious fallout
from it) led to one of the paper's first-ever episodes of public
self-criticism.
But in this case, discussion of the Dec. 16 wiretap piece has been
off-limits since it was published. "Someone on high told reporters not to talk
about it," a Washington bureau source said.
So The Times, after a year of being battered by scoops from competitors like
The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times on national-security stories, has
a blockbuster of its own—but has to discuss it sotto voce, if at all.
The paper made one apparent comment on its interactions with the White
House: The day the wiretap story appeared, editors assigned reporter Scott
Shane to write a next-day piece about the Bush administration's overextension
of executive power.
Through a spokesperson, Mr. Sulzberger declined to comment. Managing editor
Jill Abramson, Mr. Taubman, Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau all declined to
comment.
Mr. Risen has had difficulties in the past getting traction with Times
editors on a disputed topic. In fall 2003, he unsuccessfully pressed for more
skeptical coverage of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, to counterbalance the
work of Judith Miller.
Mr. Risen returned from his book leave in June of 2005. He soon began
agitating to revive the wiretapping piece and get it into the paper, according
to bureau sources.
According to multiple Times sources, the decision to move forward with the
story was accelerated by the forthcoming publication of Mr. Risen's book, State
of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.
By this past fall, according to a source familiar with the matter, Mr.
Taubman was in a parallel series of discussions: with senior Bush
administration officials over the paper's desire to publish the story, and with
Mr. Risen over the content of the book.
Mr. Risen's book is due out Jan. 16. The link between the timing of the book
and the piece was reported by the Drudge Report the day the wiretap piece came
out, with the implication that there was a promotional tie-in involved. On Dec.
20, the Los Angeles Times reported the connection and noted that the original
story had predated last year's election. That same morning, Newsweek's Jonathan
Alter wrote an online piece revealing The Times' summit with the President.
In a statement to the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Keller dismissed the role of
Mr. Risen's book and a variety of other factors in determining when the piece
would run: "The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot
Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event. We published the story
when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and
ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the Administration's
objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it."
But Times sources said that Mr. Risen's book does include the revelation
about the secret N.S.A. surveillance program. That left Mr. Taubman and his
superiors in the position of having to resolve The Times' dispute with the
administration before Mr. Risen could moot their legal and ethical
concerns—and scoop his own paper.
The Free Press, Mr. Risen's publisher, is not circulating galleys or
otherwise making the content available before the book goes on sale. "We're not
giving any comments about the content of the book until the book comes out next
month," a Free Press spokesperson said.
|