NYT: "Oops! Our bad!!"

[Se7en]

<p>Seems the Times is now making a mea culpa for exposing the SWIFT program.&nbsp; Which, I should remind all of you, was - and is - completely legal.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin" target="_self">Article here.</a></p><p>A choice selection:</p><p><strong>I haven&rsquo;t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws.</strong> Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.</p><p><strong>Also, there still haven&rsquo;t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function.</strong> That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight &mdash; to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention &mdash; was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.</p><p>&quot;Oops!!&nbsp; Looks like we published national security secrets and totally exposed what actually was a completely legal program (just like our conservative critics claimed it was), for purely partisan purposes. Our bad!&nbsp; We're sure it won't happen again........until, you know, we do do it again.&nbsp; In the name of journalism!&quot;<br /><br />You dirty, filthy fuckers.&nbsp; So, congrats, you managed to out a secret program, which was LEGAL, under the auspices that it MIGHT be used to abuse someone's (other than a terrorist's)&nbsp;privacy, even though there was no evidence&nbsp;THEN that it had been used to do so and there is no evidence NOW that it has.&nbsp; </p><p>Yet another reason why I fucking LOATHE journalists.&nbsp; My only consolation is that the NYTs profits are <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003285206" target="_self">going down the shitter</a>, so at least there are a few people out there who recognize what a fucking rag that magazine has become.</p>

[cupcakelove]

It should be pointed out, that this is an editorial, not an actual news piece.<br />

[TheMojoPin]

<p><a href="http://www.bugmenot.com/" target="_blank">If you don't want to register, use this site on Se7en's links.</a></p>

[HBox]

<p>&nbsp;</p><strong>Se7en</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Seems the Times is now making a mea culpa for exposing the SWIFT program. Which, I should remind all of you, was - and is - completely legal.</p><p><a target="_self" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">Article here.</a></p><p>A choice selection:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><strong>I haven&rsquo;t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws.</strong> Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.<p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also, there still haven&rsquo;t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function.</strong> That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight &mdash; to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention &mdash; was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;Oops!! Looks like we published national security secrets and totally exposed what actually was a completely legal program (just like our conservative critics claimed it was), for purely partisan purposes. Our bad! We're sure it won't happen again........until, you know, we do do it again. In the name of journalism!&quot;<br /><br />You dirty, filthy fuckers. So, congrats, you managed to out a secret program, which was LEGAL, under the auspices that it MIGHT be used to abuse someone's (other than a terrorist's) privacy, even though there was no evidence THEN that it had been used to do so and there is no evidence NOW that it has. </p><p>Yet another reason why I fucking LOATHE journalists. My only consolation is that the NYTs profits are <a target="_self" href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003285206">going down the shitter</a>, so at least there are a few people out there who recognize what a fucking rag that magazine has become.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Although there are some people who don't know what a public editor or an editorial is.&nbsp;</p>

[FUNKMAN]

<p>no surprises... on 9/11 the media was pinpointing on international television where the presidents plane was landing</p>

[epo]

<p>It should be pointed out this willingness to call itself on errors is the difference between a news organization (NY Times) and bullshit entertainment propaganda (Fox News).&nbsp; </p><p>Like the Times or not, this is one of many reasons it is the &quot;Paper of Record&quot; in this nation.</p>

[HBox]

To clear things up since the poster had no idea what he was talking about, this was not &quot;The Times&quot; saying they shouldn't have printed the story it was their public editor, or ombudsman. An ombudsman is an independent journalist contracted by a paper to be a sort of &quot;voice of the reader,&quot; free to say whatever he wants about the coverage or conduct of the paper. And the editorial was simply the public editor's column where he said that now he feels he was incorrect in defending the paper's revelations of the cerect program. It was not the New York Times editors saying it was a mistake.<br />

[mikeyboy]

What are the odds that Se7en will come back and comment or rebut the statements of others in this thread.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/thumbdown.gif" border="0" />

[A.J.]

The editors of the Times should have just blamed this fuck-up on alcoholism and checked into rehab for &quot;healing&quot;.

[cupcakelove]

<strong>HBox</strong> wrote:<br /><font color="Navy"><font size="2">To
clear things up since the poster had no idea what he was talking about,
this was not &quot;The Times&quot; saying they shouldn't have printed the story
it was their public editor, or ombudsman. An ombudsman is an
independent journalist contracted by a paper to be a sort of &quot;voice of
the reader,&quot; free to say whatever he wants about the coverage or
conduct of the paper. And the editorial was simply the public editor's
column where he said that now he feels he was incorrect in defending
the paper's revelations of the cerect program. It was not the New York
Times editors saying it was a mistake.</font></font><br /><p>You like to use a lot of words.<br /></p>

[WRESTLINGFAN]

<p>Things arent too rosy at the NYT</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[epo]

<strong>WRESTLINGFAN</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Things arent too rosy at the NYT</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Pop Quiz:&nbsp; Name a credible newspaper that is on a profit upswing right now.&nbsp; </p><p>Answer:&nbsp; None.&nbsp; </p><p>The business paradigm of news has changed and all of them are attempting to figure out how to redistribute their assets.&nbsp; </p>

[Jujubees2]

<strong>A.J.</strong> wrote:<br />The editors of the Times should have just blamed this fuck-up on alcoholism and checked into rehab for &quot;healing&quot;. <p><font size="2">Or they could have been abused by a priest as a child.</font></p>

[HeyGuy]

<strong>epo</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>WRESTLINGFAN</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Things arent too rosy at the NYT</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20061019/en_bpiep/nytimesco3qprofitplunges39beloalsodown</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Pop Quiz:&nbsp; Name a credible newspaper that is on a profit upswing right now.&nbsp; </p><p>Answer:&nbsp; None.&nbsp; </p><p>The business paradigm of news has changed and all of them are attempting to figure out how to redistribute their assets.&nbsp; </p><p>If you ever watch faux news and the preilly factor he always talks about how the times is losing money and its because they are so left. Well that why faux news can not be believed. Most of not all newspaper companies have lost a lot of readers and paid subscriptions the reason, people are using other ways to get there news. Mostly free news over the internet. By the time the paper is printed and out to the public, its already yesterdays news. We get the stroy instantly over the net.</p>

[TheMojoPin]

I bet it would be hysterical if someone called you &quot;CampooNJ&quot; every time they responded to you.&nbsp; BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!111&nbsp; IT'S BRILLIANT!!11!!

[phixion]

how can you complain about the leftist agenda about of a newspaper in a liberal city? this is the New York Times.