Did the NYT bury reporter Peter Baker's story on a memo written by Obama's own national intelligence director, suggesting that harsh interrogation methods had proved effective in understanding Al Qaeda? Washington Examiner journalist Byron York has his suspicions.
From Baker's 850-word online story, "Banned Techniques Yielded 'High Value Information,' Memo Says, " which has rocketed across the Drudge Report and the conservative web since it was posted at nytimes.com Tuesday:
President Obama's national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Baker caught an intriguing bit of redaction by the Obama administration:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Admiral Blair's assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past," he wrote, "but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."
But Examiner journalist Byron York noticed that, although the story rocketed across the internet since being posted yesterday, it didn't even make the print edition of Wednesday's Times. Most of the information unearthed by Baker was there, but relegated to paragraphs 9-13 of a larger story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, which was itself relegated to page 17 of the New York Late Edition.
The money quote about the "high-value information" derived from the interrogations is preserved in Stolberg, but the headline doesn't provide any hint of any information about the Blair memo: "Obama Won't Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations."
Times editors insisted to York there was no bias afoot:
I asked Richard Stevenson, who is the Times' deputy Washington bureau chief, what was going on. He told me Baker got the Blair information late in the day Tuesday, and there just wasn't room for it in the paper. "We already had three stories on this subject," Stevenson explained, "and it was late, there was no more space to do this separately...We just didn't have the space to put it in the print newspaper."
....
One reason Baker's story has attracted so much attention is that it provided some balance to a number of interrogation stories we have seen in the Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere. There is a legitimate argument to be made by the defenders of the Bush administration's interrogation program, and to see it echoed by Barack Obama's national intelligence director is striking. My guess is that, even given the attention Baker's story has gotten on the Web, it would have had even more impact were it the paper, as well.
Stevenson denied that there was any bias in the Times' decision not to run the story in the paper edition. "If your implication was there was some sort of ideological or value judgment made about the subject matter, that's preposterous," he told me. "It was 8:30 at night, we had a lot of stories going, a limited amount of space, and the ability to get that news into a different story."
But the Times's reaction -- dissolving the story into another one without even leaving behind a byline (Baker got a credit at the bottom) -- certainly gives no incentive to any ambitious reporter to go against the paper's predominant liberal instincts.
Oh well. At least leaving out Baker's memo story left room on the same page for another vital story by the same reporter: "Obama Signs Volunteer Bill With Nod to Kennedy Era," which ate up 425 words, plus photo.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
dissolving the story into another one
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 12:57 ET by SickofLibsAcid, the indispensable tool of the Gambino Family and NYT journalists.
its a new day
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:12 ET by AJBWe don't need any interrogation methods, nor any national security secrets anymore. The whole world LOVES Obama and would never ever think of causing us any harm. Let's just comply. We can give them the secrets to our nuclear bombs, locations, capability. We'll never have to use them again. Let's shut down all our armed forces bases. Those are now obsolete. We can use that money to buy homes for every poor person in the country. Everyone will respect our borders, so lets get rid of immigration. Everyone will gladly pay much more tax, so lets get rid of the IRS.
Yes, this new world is so cool. Don't you just FEEL the love?
The scenerio is quite simple ... we WILL be attacked again
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:14 ET by dark_dsThe scenerio is quite simple ... we WILL be attacked again sooner or later .. probably sooner ....and unfortunately its the only way this appeasment and naive world view will be discredited once and hopefully for all ...I feel bad for those who live in the probable target areas ....but those target areas .... LA, Chicago New York, DC chose this world view when they voted for Obama ...they might have signed their childrens death warrant ... very sad
_______ Him and the Unicorn he rode in on
more liberal bias
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:28 ET by soosanthis is what my papa used to call "dirty pool" on the part of the new regime and their media buddies - kinda like victors writing the history books. I sure hope that the general population catches on. (but I'm not holding my breath.)
The key takeaway is that
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 17:51 ET by BDThe key takeaway is that liberals do not see the necessity in keeping defense related secrets if they can reap a potential political reward from exposing them.
In the 1970's Jimmy Carter stood on a dias and gave away much of the store when it comes to the US's high altitdue imagery capability. He just let it go so he could look knowledgeable for the cameras regardless of the consequenses. He was even advised by the imagery experts not to do so at the time.
Obama has done exactly the same thing.
Niether of them can envision ever being forced to use military capabilities, therefore information being classified is considered wasteful when a political consideration can be acheived.
Both expect that due to their new policies the world would LOVE them and that would obviate the need of the use of force in persuit of US interests. And the guy carrying the rucksack will suffer due to this hubris.
Of Course it Works........
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:18 ET by ConScottI've been tortured for years by the liberal/progressive media and openly admit to being a conservative, a Reagan Republican........
Is that not proof enough?
What's the scale?
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 13:40 ET by KC MulvilleWhat's the correct balance between interrogation force versus the information obtained?
You're obviously comparing [the pain you inflict] against [the information you obtain]. You increase one at the expense of the other. The problem is obvious. You won't know the quality of the information until you get it. Before you apply the pain, you have no way of evaluating the information you're likely to receive (after all, if you knew what information the suspect would give you, you'd already have it).
Moral issues are (by definition) difficult choices you make when you don't know the outcome aforetime. It's therefore a balance of values, in which the degree of uncertainty is a relevant criterion. To the degree that liberals claim that we can't inflict any pain, they're simply taking the easy way out. They're not addressing the moral question, they're avoiding it.
Now, in addition, if these guys were wearing uniforms, that would radically change the equation. You can't inflict pain on soldiers. But these are terrorists, which means that they shouldn't receive the same protection as soldiers. And if you give them extra protection, you undermine the virtue of wearing a uniform, which kills more people down the road.
Torture
Thu, 04/23/2009 - 04:45 ET by Sergeant ROCKI could've sworn that the original definition of torture was anything done that would put your life in danger? Liberals would have you believe that anything done that would make you uncomfortable and/or add stress is torture. That being the case, aren't we all being 'tortured' on a daily basis by any number of things.
Obambi's naive approach to dealing with the causers of 'man-caused disasters' will result in another attack on the U.S. His appeasement tactics will gain nothing. I do not wish this for political reasons (as a liberal would), but facts are facts, and this will be seen as a sign of weakness by our enemies.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Yep, totally agree! The media uses the word torture in such a
Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:44 ET by pahubersweeping way that it means causing any uncomfortability... soon to become (under obama) any inconvenience.
American Life
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 15:34 ET by JDWDestruction of the 75 story LA building (occupied by 10,000) was preferable to torture of terrorists to yield information to save it.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
The government works for me, not the other way around
Now that we've admitted to
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 18:27 ET by StewMcKinNow that we've admitted to torturing detainees, does it mean that our enemies are welcome to torture our soldiers? If a CIA spy is caught in say, Russia, is it okay for the Russians to torture our operatives in order to get information from them?
Naive
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 20:17 ET by slickwillie2001We've used this idiotic 'if we torture, they will torture our soldiers' logic for decades. When will we admit that it doesn't work that way? Our soldiers have been tortured in every instance when they were captured from WWII until today.
Only a liberal that believes that another gun law will prevent criminals from using guns, also might believe that if we treat terrorist prisoners nicely that they will treat ours nicely. There's a parallel there, and it's the height of naivety.
Same problems with the liberals and nuclear disarmament, land mines, poison gas, etc.
Why has the NY Times buried
Wed, 04/22/2009 - 22:17 ET by VinncyGWhy has the NY Times buried the NY Times??