Day: July 5, 2006

What did the Times know and when did it know it?

The New York Times undertook to blow what it called, in its headline, the “secret” international terrorist financing tracking program, for reasons that it never has been able to explain. Initially, there was no doubt about the fact that the Times was exposing a secret; reporter Eric Lichtblau used that word to describe the SWIFT program something like twelve times in the body of the Times’ article. But when the Times unexpectedly found itself under heavy criticism for damaging national security, it took the nearest port in a storm, and claimed that the SWIFT program wasn’t a secret after all. Everyone knew about it! Which, of course, left people scratching their heads over the story’s page one, above the fold placement.

And there’s more on this matter here, but you don’t find it at Romenesko: Your daily fix of media industry news, commentary, and memos, where the perspective — Mainstream gossip and industry developments — does not allow it.

Part of what you will find is this from Eric Lichtblau, written last November to give an idea of just how secret it was — impenetrable until NYT told about it:

[The administration] is now developing a program to gain access to and track potentially hundreds of millions of international bank transfers into the United States.

But experts in the field say the results have been spotty, with few clear dents in Al Qaeda’s ability to move money and finance terrorist attacks.

Few clear dents, eh?  

===============

While you’re considering this matter, see what happened in similar circumstances long ago, thanks again to NY Times!

 

What did the Times know and when did it know it?

The New York Times undertook to blow what it called, in its headline, the “secret” international terrorist financing tracking program, for reasons that it never has been able to explain. Initially, there was no doubt about the fact that the Times was exposing a secret; reporter Eric Lichtblau used that word to describe the SWIFT program something like twelve times in the body of the Times’ article. But when the Times unexpectedly found itself under heavy criticism for damaging national security, it took the nearest port in a storm, and claimed that the SWIFT program wasn’t a secret after all. Everyone knew about it! Which, of course, left people scratching their heads over the story’s page one, above the fold placement.

And there’s more on this matter here, but you don’t find it at Romenesko: Your daily fix of media industry news, commentary, and memos, where the perspective — Mainstream gossip and industry developments — does not allow it.

Part of what you will find is this from Eric Lichtblau, written last November to give an idea of just how secret it was — impenetrable until NYT told about it:

[The administration] is now developing a program to gain access to and track potentially hundreds of millions of international bank transfers into the United States.

But experts in the field say the results have been spotty, with few clear dents in Al Qaeda’s ability to move money and finance terrorist attacks.

Few clear dents, eh?  

===============

While you’re considering this matter, see what happened in similar circumstances long ago, thanks again to NY Times!

 

Beavers an original

Second or third reading of the remarkable “poop butt” comment by Ald. Wm. Beavers, who says he speaks for the Stroger family or camp, when he alluded to county clerk David Orr, who has elections as his official concern, leads to noting his “What does he [Orr] care?” comment.  This was Beavers exposing himself as having not the slightest idea of the abstraction known as the rule of law. 

If Orr is not directly involved in the fight for money and power at the county board, Beavers seems to say, then why is he saying anything?  It goes with an earlier statement on TV by Beavers, for which I cannot find a link, “We can do anything we want” — this as to whether they keep the missing Stroger on or off the ballot, in or out of office, and put son Todd Stroger on or in. 

It’s as if he’s utterly missing the elementary powers of abstraction that divide material self-interest from respect for law or even propriety.  He’s not the only one, to be sure, but he’s the clearest on the point.

Beavers an original

Second or third reading of the remarkable “poop butt” comment by Ald. Wm. Beavers, who says he speaks for the Stroger family or camp, when he alluded to county clerk David Orr, who has elections as his official concern, leads to noting his “What does he [Orr] care?” comment.  This was Beavers exposing himself as having not the slightest idea of the abstraction known as the rule of law. 

If Orr is not directly involved in the fight for money and power at the county board, Beavers seems to say, then why is he saying anything?  It goes with an earlier statement on TV by Beavers, for which I cannot find a link, “We can do anything we want” — this as to whether they keep the missing Stroger on or off the ballot, in or out of office, and put son Todd Stroger on or in. 

It’s as if he’s utterly missing the elementary powers of abstraction that divide material self-interest from respect for law or even propriety.  He’s not the only one, to be sure, but he’s the clearest on the point.