Sign up for The Media Today, CJR’s daily newsletter.
Two people falsely accused of the same crime might be expected to share a certain empathy for one another. But two newspapers? Not so much.
Witness the Washington Times‘ gratuitous swipe on Friday at the New York Times.
From an editorial entitled, “Surveillance Works”:
Can we all agree now on the necessity of uncompromised terrorist surveillance programs? British authorities said yesterday that “an unprecedented level” of surveillance of meetings, spending, travel and “the aspirations” of terrorists was the key to unraveling yesterday’s horrific plot to blow up transatlantic airliners in flight. This may or may not be the result of a “terrorism surveillance program” so controversial of late, but it surely demonstrates the need.
We shudder to think what would have happened in the coming days had the New York Times gotten hold of British or American airline antiterrorism investigations prior to yesterday’s arrests.
The fact that yet another conservative media outlet is taking yet another cheap shot at the New York Times isn’t at first glance particularly surprising. After all, ever since the Times published its controversial story in June about the federal government’s surveillance of international money transfers, the knees have been jerking (never mind that those accusations are, for the most part, without merit, as we noted here and here).
Then again, it wasn’t long ago that the Washington Times itself was also accused — falsely — of essentially the same transgression.
Recall that back in December, President Bush admonished an unnamed newspaper for publishing a story revealing information about Osama bin Laden’s satellite phone. According to the president, as a result of the paper’s carelessness bin Laden shut off his phone, the feds lost track of him, and 9/11 ensued.
The paper in question, as it turned out, was … the Washington Times.
Afterwards the paper’s editors disputed the president’s accusation, pointing out that at the time of their supposedly irresponsible article the existence of bin Laden’s satellite phone was hardly a state secret. In fact, it was old news, which had been written about publicly several times before.
Not unlike, say, the government’s not-so-secret secret financial-monitoring program at the heart of the New York Times‘ supposedly irresponsible story.
In the aftermath of the president’s criticism of the Washington Times‘ story, various reporters from other news outlets labored to set the record straight. Rather than piling on their competitor, they went out of their way to dispel the allegation that the paper had inadvertently aided terrorism.
Apparently, the Washington Times feels no need to extend the same courtesy to those wrongly accused at the New York Times.
Then again, ink is rarely thicker than water.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
