Bush tells Post, Times to withhold
stories
Washington Post
Bush Presses Editors on Security
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 26, 2005; C01
President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to
prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security.
The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the
executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication
of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised
questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics.
Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, would not confirm the
meeting with Bush before publishing reporter Dana Priest's Nov. 2 article
disclosing the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe used to
interrogate terror suspects. Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, would
not confirm that he, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Washington bureau
chief Philip Taubman had an Oval Office sit-down with the president on Dec. 5,
11 days before reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that Bush had
authorized eavesdropping on Americans and others within the United States
without court orders.
But the meetings were confirmed by sources who have been briefed on them but
are not authorized to comment because both sides had agreed to keep the
sessions off the record. The White House had no comment.
"When senior administration officials raised national security questions
about details in Dana's story during her reporting, at their request we met
with them on more than one occasion," Downie says. "The meetings were off the
record for the purpose of discussing national security issues in her story." At
least one of the meetings involved John Negroponte, the director of national
intelligence, and CIA Director Porter Goss, the sources said.
"This was a matter of concern for intelligence officials, and they sought to
address their concerns," an intelligence official said. Some liberals
criticized The Post for withholding the location of the prisons at the
administration's request.
After Bush's meeting with the Times executives, first reported by Newsweek's
Jonathan Alter, the president assailed the paper's piece on domestic spying,
calling the leak of classified information "shameful." Some liberals,
meanwhile, attacked the paper for holding the story for more than a year after
earlier meetings with administration officials.
"The decision to hold the story last year was mine," Keller says. "The
decision to run the story last week was mine. I'm comfortable with both
decisions. Beyond that, there's just no way to have a full discussion of the
internal procedural twists that media writers find so fascinating without
talking about what we knew, when, and how -- and that I can't do."
Some Times staffers say the story was revived in part because of concerns
that Risen is publishing a book on the CIA next month that will include the
disclosures. But Keller told the Los Angeles Times: "The publication was not
timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or
any other event."
Bought Off?
The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted
Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty
iceberg.
Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a
Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop
from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients.
"I am fully responsible and I won't play victim," Bandow said in a statement
after Business Week broke the story. "Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to
question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . .
For that I deeply apologize."
Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking
payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his
papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now
dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: "There is nothing unethical
about taking money from someone and writing an article."
Readers might disagree on grounds that they have no way of knowing about
such undisclosed payments, which seem to be an increasingly common tactic for
companies trying to influence public debate through ostensibly neutral third
parties. When he was a Washington lawyer several years ago, says law professor
Glenn Reynolds, a telecommunications carrier offered him a fat paycheck -- up
to $20,000, he believes -- to write an opinion piece favorable to its position.
He declined.
In the case of Bandow's columns, says Reynolds, who now writes the
InstaPundit blog, "one argument is, it's probably something he thought anyway,
but it doesn't pass the smell test to me. I wouldn't necessarily call it
criminal, but it seems wrong. People want to craft a rule, but what you really
need is a sense of shame."
Jonathan Adler, an associate law professor and National Review contributor,
wrote that when he worked at a think tank, "I was offered cash payments to
write op-eds on particular topics by PR firms, lobbyists or corporations
several times. They offered $1,000 or more for an op-ed," offers that Adler
rejected. Blogger Rand Simberg writes that "I've also declined offers of money
to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment."
Two years ago, former Michigan senator Don Riegle wrote an op-ed attacking
Visa and MasterCard without disclosing that his PR firm was representing
Wal-Mart -- which was suing the two credit card companies.
Porn, Privacy and Participation
Kurt Eichenwald says he knew he would take heat for his decision to urge a
teenager involved in child pornography to give up the business and cooperate
with federal investigators.
"We are sitting there facing a horrible reality," the New York Times
reporter says. "Every day I'm sitting there working on the story, there are
children being molested and exploited, and we have a source who knows who and
where they are."
The lengthy Times report last week on Justin Berry, now 19, whose
cooperation with the Justice Department has led to several arrests, was
remarkable, not least because it was Eichenwald who persuaded the young man to
give up drugs and stop performing sexual acts for paying customers in front of
a webcam -- and even referred him to a lawyer. The reporter clearly crossed the
line from observer to participant.
"I knew our profession would look at this and say this was a troubling
result," Eichenwald says. "But every result was troubling. I'm interviewing a
kid and he suddenly starts naming children and telling me where they are and
what's happening to them. He knew which kid was under the control of which
pedophile."
Slate media critic Jack Shafer is among those who have raised questions,
writing: "Would a Times reporter extend similar assistance to an 18-year-old
female prostitute? An 18-year-old fence? A seller of illegal guns? No way. . .
. Will online pornographers and other allied criminals now regard reporters as
agents of the state?"
At a July meeting with top editors and company lawyers, Eichenwald says,
Executive Editor Bill Keller said that " 'we've got to do the right thing.' . .
. It would have been easier to come up with all sorts of explanations of why we
should walk away."
Eichenwald says he had to persuade Berry, an abused child who was lured into
performing for the webcam when he was 13, to get out of the porn business and
give up drugs for him to be useful as a source for the paper. The reporter says
he personally provided information to the FBI about a 15-year-old boy being
lured to a Las Vegas hotel by Berry's 38-year-old business partner, who was
arrested before the planned rendezvous.
"I knew we'd be criticized for getting a source to become a federal
witness," Eichenwald says. But he says he's had nightmares and, as a father,
feels "an enormous amount of guilt" about other children in the porn ring that
he did not try to help.
If all this sounds like a movie, Eichenwald got calls from Hollywood within
hours.
Plunging Reputations
"The image consultant said, 'You've got to stop wearing those turtlenecks. I
think you've got to start showing some cleavage.' I told her I didn't think
America was ready for that." -- ABC's Judy Muller, quoted by Amy Tenowich in a
Los Angeles Daily News column on female journalists baring more skin.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
|