"I shall never buy the New York Times again"

The Sunday TImes reports, you decide: "People look at the lobster and try to imagine what its experience would be like, but they don't look at a package of chicken breasts and imagine what the experience would be like," said Jay Weinstein, a Manhattan caterer whose book "The Ethical Gourmet" was published this month. "It's because they're closer to the final step of the killing."

"Authority has drained from journalism for a reason. Too many of its practitioners have been easily exposed as poseurs," wrote Hugh Hewitt last January re the pipe dreams of Columbia School of Journalism's new dean, Nicholas Lemann, blogged here the other day. Now we learn in imail this afternoon that the popular imagination may have reached critical mass. More on that in a moment,* but first, here's what Hugh wrote a coupla months back, summing up what Glenn Reynolds's Army of Davids -- not to mention protobloggers like ourselves way back when -- have known for years:

There is too much expertise, all of it almost instantly available now, for the traditional idea of journalism to last much longer. In the past, almost every bit of information was difficult and expensive to acquire and was therefore mediated by journalists whom readers and viewers were usually in no position to second-guess.

The tipping point approaches in the wake of the New York Times's recent lemming-like rush over the edge. ScrappleFace gets it just right:

A secret New York Times program for fighting ‘the war on the war on terror’ represents a “radical expansion of executive editor authority” according to a legal analyst who studied the parameters of the “intel sifting and sharing program” that the Times uses to disseminate U.S. national security information to international terror groups.

Unhindered by the courts or the Congress, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller continues his campaign for greater personal power to unilaterally prosecute the anti-anti-terror battle, according to the unnamed analyst.

*Here's what makes us think we've reached the tipping point, a life-changng moment from our imail correspondent:

She: Here's a MAMS [Me and my show] for you. Even though it was an Acrostic Sunday . . . I shall never buy the NYT again.

We: YES!!! You finally came to your senses.

She: This latest round of treason has done me in. Literally, it was a point of critical mass. I really WANTED to do a puzzle and an Acrostic, but at what selling-out-to-the enemy price?

We: You have done the right thing for God and country.

She: It's thrilling to see them exposed, although the exposure may take a long time. Look how long it took me.

We: Yes, but again . . . Critical mass. The tipping point.

She: Yes, and also surface tension.

What about it, Ann Althouse? We note from a couple of posts of late that our esteemed blog friend is still shelling out to the Times to feed her puzzle habit. Time to just say no?

Update: Allah has the must-watch video of GW's response and relevant links at Hot Air:

I haven’t seen him this angry . . . ever, really. Maybe prosecutions aren’t that unlikely.

We don't know about prosecutions, but the sight and sound of the President's righteous indignation are good for the soul.

Comments

[Teresa]

May I suggest Barnes and Noble, or some other book store, possibly an online discount store. You may buy a plethora of puzzles of every type - many in my favorite spiral bound format so it's easy to leave open to the page you're working on.

You can find Sunday size puzzles, daily puzzles, themed puzzles. Acrostics abound as do several other types of word puzzle books.

All these puzzle types are online too. For instance, here's a page on about.com with links...
http://puzzles.about.com/od/acrostics/

There are crossword puzzle sites too, not to mention a lovely little time waster called sudoku which I will spend some time with here...
http://www.websudoku.com/

As for crossword puzzles - just head to ask.com and type it in - you will be met with a cornucopia of puzzles online.

Many of these offer the ability to print them so you can do them with paper and pen.

Go forth and check it out. Why get newspaper ink on your fingers? And even more important - why give your money to an entity that is working so very hard to destroy our country?

[goomp]

As a child I was very religious and felt I spoke with God. Today I am agnostic, but I remember the faith I once had with nostalgia. If those who are arrogant secular people in the USA don't understand the fervor of the Muslim fanatics, they are doomed to destruction and defeat. Unfortunately the majority of MSM are of that persuasion.

[Larry Rasczak]

Typical NYT readers...

I don't get the NYT, I live in the real world (Texas) so I read the Wall Street Journal.

What speakes to me most about the NYT is their commercials... in one a lovely young lady tells me that she "...thinks Sunday morning was made for the New York Times". This always made me want to scream "NO!! Sunday was made for you to GO TO CHURCH, you godless, brainless, twit!"

Seriously, this spoke volumes to me about the NYT. Not that they view themselves as being smarter and more educated than anyone who might actually visit a church on Sunday, (I already knew that about them).

What struck me was that apparently NOBODY at the NYT (or their ad agency) ever thought that maybe, just maybe, SOMEONE out there in the backwoods red state "hollers" of Houston, Dallas, Nashville, San Antonio, Atlanta etc...might see religion as something other than a quaint but outdated custom. It was simply ASSUMED that one was NOT busy on a Sunday morning, and thusly should spend it with the NYT crossword and NPR and Starbucks; not with a Bible or a hynmal.

The other thing that strikes me about the commercial is the young lady that says "I've been reading the NYT since I was seven."

I get the impression that after all that work she is up to the B section, and hopes to make it to the Lifestyle section by the end of the year.

[Hank]

The NYT crosswords run a week later in the Chicago Sun-Times. I assume they resell them to other local papers too.

[Askmom]

Sudoku are fun, too, and you can get free Sudoku puzzles of every difficulty level at WebSudoku.com

I wouldn't spend a dime on the NY Slimes if my children were on the front page above the fold. The Times' stock prices are tanking and they deserve corporate death and personal shame, every last one of the traitors.

[enrevanche]

Sorry, folks... but unless we all woke up in Red China this morning, reporting the news does not and will never equal "treason." We are a free society and we have a free press, and I for one am going to fight to make sure that those freedoms are protected; there is *not* a "because we really really need to" exception to the First Amendment. Nope.

My sympathies are much more in line with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal than the New York Times, but to describe the Times' reporting on the quasi-legal surveillance programs instituted by the Bush administratin as "treasonous" is simply to stretch that word so out of shape that it's past recognition, and to diminish its semantic value to a nullty.

[Steve-o]

enravanche: It's cute that you think a free press has no limits. But, you are wrong. All speech has limits, and that idea has been codified in the law for a long time. There is always the question of where to draw the line, but no question that the line can be drawn. Under your reasoning, treason doesn't and can't exist. I suggest some reading of pertinent case law would be a good idea for you.

[F15C]

evrevanche: "Sorry, folks... but unless we all woke up in Red China this morning, reporting the news does not and will never equal "treason"."

[Sentence deleted. Ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters using crude language are never appropriate. Keep it civil, F15C]. Reporting the news most certainly can be treason. Aiding the enemy in time of war can be a treasonous act and there is a reasonable argument that the NYTs action will aid the enemy. For example, if the SWIFT program shuts down as a result of the NYT story (an easily predictable outcome) then SWIFT becomes safe and secure for terrorists and their supporters to use for funds transfers - they know it won't be monitored. That aids the enemy.

I shouldn't need to tell you that much of that money goes to Iraq (with some to Afghanistan) to fund the creation and deployment of IEDs, the buying guns and ammunition, and paying combatants and all the other uses which the enemy needs to kill our soldiers and civilians. That is aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war.

Regardless of motivation, neither you, me, or the NYT has any constitutional, regulatory, or statutorial right to endanger the operations and very lives of the military or civilians during time of war. Our soldiers and civilians have legal protection in the form of laws against espionage and treason from being killed and maimed by the willful actions of their fellow citizens - including those American citizens at the NYT. If you believe the NYT can break laws, then you must believe the same of you and me and terrorists.

Paraphrasing the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The NYT has no greater or additional rights than your or I, and the Constitution does not exempt them from prosecution for disobeying the law of the land. Freedom of the press was granted to the people, not to a business. I am not free to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and the NYT is not free to endanger the operations and lives of American citizens for its own financial betterment.

As an aside, If there were people who wanted to kill the editorial staff of the NYT over their actions, and you or I published information which we knew could help them, we would be guilty of aiding and abetting their crime and could be considered an accomplice before the fact. As much disdain as I have for the NYT, I would never wish such a thing upon them. (We all know though, that if anyone were to go after the NYT in that way it would certainlly not be a radical Islamist group. The NYT is too valuable to them to destroy - yet.)

The people at the NYT knew full well that the ramifications of their actions could include endangering our troops and civilians, and the published anyway. They should be punished to the full extent of the law.

[red river]

The NYT has done irreparable damage to the freedom of the press on three levels:

By publishing classified information ongoing operations, the NYT has compromised its freedom of the press because it has strengthening the supporters of Radical Islam - under whom there is no freedom.

By taking advantage of the willingness of persons to inform the press about operations, the NYT will cause these type of programs to go deep black where no one will talk about them because the Press cannot be trusted. The Press will not get such info so easily in the future.

Finally, the NYT has damaged its crediblity with the public - because it has shown a willingness to put the NYT's political goals above the safety of Americans and civilians. The public will no longer willingly accept the Press' assertions.

I do think that the NYT has opened itself up to a Civil Class Action suit for violating the civil rights of US Military and covert personnel and their familes. I would like to see a fund established to start bringing this case to court.

[Steve-o]

US soldiers in IRaq have freedom of speech too. Here's one soldier's take:

Lt. Tom Cotton writes this morning from Baghdad with a word for the New York Times:

Dear Messrs. Keller, Lichtblau & Risen:

Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program (June 23). I apologize for not writing sooner. But I am a lieutenant in the United States Army and I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. (Alas, operational security and common sense prevent me from even revealing this unclassified location in a private medium like email.)

Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil like Plato's guardians. No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary. As your story states, the program was legal, briefed to Congress, supported in the government and financial industry, and very successful.

Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

(end)

As Tony Snow said, is the public's right to know more important than someone's right to live?

[steve-o supporter]

steve-o

great post. thank you very much for your input, please do not stay silent.

the nyt should have sought input from congress about this matter before taking it to print (as they obviously have no respect for the white house). if they did check with democrats on intelligence committees in congress and yet still ran the story then running the story is more than negligence, its borderline criminal. im sure that the first amendment will protect them though, but make them pay by running dozens of their lawyers, editors, and management through the courts and exposing their insidious selfish excesses in supposed public service. no one elected them!!

[enrevanche]

I realize that my opinion is not shared (vocally) by many here, but thought it should be pointed out that not every conservative believes that muzzling the press is the way to win (undeclared) wars.

Those who counsel me to read up on First Amendment law would do well to educate themselves on the legal definition of "treason" in US law, look into the history of what has been judged to rise to the level of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and to look into the number of times that American citizens have actually been successfully prosecuted for same in the country's entire history.

Those of you crying "treason": Your rhetoric is overblown; your mouths are writing checks that your facts can't cash.

The *most* the Times can be accused of credibly is violating a *strong tradition* of the press keeping secrets during wartime, and even that is arguable.

And those of you who think that the newspapers have violated counterespionage laws... would any of you care to place a small wager on the outcome of the current sound and fury around that issue? We can let the wagers be held in escrow and send the proceeds to a suitable charity, such as Valour-IT, later on.

The coverage that I've read indicates that the New York Times (*and* the Wall Street Journal *and* the LA Times, by the way - is there enough press-hatred to go around to include all of them?) all discussed this article with the Administration for *weeks* and were not persuaded by their arguments against publication (see, e.g., http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060626/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorist_financing_9).

I am a proud American; I support the military; I have friends and relatives serving now. I'm a solid conservative and rock-ribbed Republican. I live less than a mile as the crow flies from Ground Zero and lost good friends on 9/11; I support the war on terror (though I have quite a few quibbles about the way it's currently being prosecuted.)

I understand wanting to protect America and Americans.

I also want to make sure that at the end of the day, it's still "America" that we're protecting.