New York Times reporters met with White House before publishing WikiLeaks story

[charrob]

The White House was very upset with WikiLeaks for their decision to publish thousands of pages of classified reports and documents describing our mission in Afghanistan. But according to Yahoo's Michael Calderone, they were very pleased with how the New York Times dealt with their semi-exclusive access to the documents.

Times Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet took reporters Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt to the White House last week to brief the administration on what they planned on publishing. And they all got gold stars.


“I did in fact go the White House and lay out for them what we had,” Baquet said. “We did it to give them the opportunity to comment and react. They did. They also praised us for the way we handled it, for giving them a chance to discuss it, and for handling the information with care. And for being responsible.”


The Times redacted some information in the name of "national security" and protecting the safety of individual soldiers, but the White House doesn't seem to have told the Times that publishing stories based on these documents would in any real way harm our troops.

So, uh... why was all of this information classified and top secret? If it's old news, and it just confirms what "everyone" already knows, what was the rationale for keeping it classified and calling WikiLeaks all sorts of mean names for publishing it?

http://www.salon.com/news/the_new_york_times/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/07/26/times_wikileaks_white_house_meeting

[Anti Federalist]

It's stories like this that make the link between the media/government very clear.

Obviously, the MSM does not release anything that's "hot" without first consulting with government.

[michaelwise]

Main Street is upset with the Whitehouse for their complicit coverup of the truth and supporting the previous administration.

[michaelwise]

It's stories like this that make the link between the media/government very clear.

Obviously, the MSM does not release anything that's "hot" without first consulting with government.They will soon be calling it "the dead stream media".

[Reason]

Remember that washington post expose' about "Top Secret America"?

Read this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2523122-post1.html

[RM918]

I don't understand how anyone can take that organization seriously. Listening to them talking about how the White House praised them as 'responsible' reads exactly like a parent praising their child for listening to them obediently.

[awake]

...and they thought themselves to be free.

[charrob]

It's stories like this that make the link between the media/government very clear.

Obviously, the MSM does not release anything that's "hot" without first consulting with government.

-so much agree with you Anti Federalist; it really makes one question: so what is the purpose of journalism?

[michaelwise]

Leaking to the dead stream media first does not diminish Wikileaks credibility. It was a strategic maneuver on their part to enfranchise the MSM, throwing them a bone, and establishing some credibility with them so as to have some fair reporting on the information leaked. A great strategic play on their part. The propagandist brainwashing dead stream media arm still has a little life left in them and their power shouldn't be ignored. They are trying to get the internet shut down after all.

[awake]

-so much agree with you Anti Federalist; it really makes one question: so what is the purpose of journalism?

Journalism, in its current meaning of the word, obviously means to tell the stories that which the ruling class want you to know. They are the wool, of which is pulled over all our eyes.

[Slutter McGee]

I really see no problem with this. Sensitive info could endanger our troops in the field. Giving the white house the heads up seems like a good idea. Big difference between asking permission, and giving a heads up that you are releasing something that could possibly endanger American lives.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[pcosmar]

I really see no problem with this. Sensitive info could endanger our troops in the field. Giving the white house the heads up seems like a good idea. Big difference between asking permission, and giving a heads up that you are releasing something that could possibly endanger American lives.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Our Foreign Policy is what endangers American lives.
Telling the truth about failure and incompetence can lead to changes that will actually save lives.

if it were logically acted upon.
:(

[Slutter McGee]

Our Foreign Policy is what endangers American lives.
Telling the truth about failure and incompetence can lead to changes that will actually save lives.

if it were logically acted upon.
:(

I swear. People never actually read what I say or spend the 4 seconds it takes to understand my extremely articulate writing. I am all for the release of that info.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[pcosmar]

I swear. People never actually read what I say or spend the 4 seconds it takes to understand my extremely articulate writing. I am all for the release of that info.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I read what you posted, and understood it.
I take a contrary position, I don't want our troops to be where they are. At all.
"Our troops" are involved in what amounts to criminal behavior, and the very best thing that could happen is for our foreign forces to be so utterly wiped out and defeated so soundly that the people of the US will rethink the madness of sending them.

:mad:

[Anti Federalist]

I really see no problem with this. Sensitive info could endanger our troops in the field. Giving the white house the heads up seems like a good idea. Big difference between asking permission, and giving a heads up that you are releasing something that could possibly endanger American lives.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

And do you honestly think that if government said: "Well now, upon review, we think you should not run this story, publishing this information could threaten lives in the field", that the MSM organ in question would boldly proclaim "No, be damned, we are publishing this"?

[Anti Federalist]

I read what you posted, and understood it.
I take a contrary position, I don't want our troops to be where they are. At all.
"Our troops" are involved in what amounts to criminal behavior, and the very best thing that could happen is for our foreign forces to be so utterly wiped out and defeated so soundly that the people of the US will rethink the madness of sending them.

:mad:

Now you've done it Pete.

:D:rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

I don't understand how anyone can take that organization seriously. Listening to them talking about how the White House praised them as 'responsible' reads exactly like a parent praising their child for listening to them obediently.

it make sense that they would get the WH permission.
Afterall, woul you want to be extraordinarily renditioned to a military base in the middle east to be tortured for releasing info they didn't want public? They have every right to do that nowadays afterall.....

[Reason]

YouTube - 'WikiLeaks story soft, coverage a 9/11-like lie' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvywJQ3m4Ps)

YouTube - Afghan Bombshell: WikiLeaks 'War Diary' exposes US cover-up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDcnBeY_t3c)

YouTube - Reports reveal Afghan war details (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZxRGgqWQeI)

YouTube - WikiLeaks vs White House: Who's twisting the truth? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXYlk9543Z4)

[heavenlyboy34]

it make sense that they would get the WH permission.
Afterall, woul you want to be extraordinarily renditioned to a military base in the middle east to be tortured for releasing info they didn't want public? They have every right to do that nowadays afterall.....

Yep, to hell with the first ammendment! /sarcasm

[specsaregood]

Yep, to hell with the first ammendment! /sarcasm

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. :)
Yes they have a right to publish whatever they want and not face criminal charges in the US. But the govt evidently has the right to kidnap them, take them to egypt and torture their ass in response. :(

[Slutter McGee]

And do you honestly think that if government said: "Well now, upon review, we think you should not run this story, publishing this information could threaten lives in the field", that the MSM organ in question would boldly proclaim "No, be damned, we are publishing this"?

Very likely they would say that and publish the story anyway. I am not saying that the news media should not publish the story because American Lives are at risk. Just saying that informing the government of the contents of what you will publish allows the military the chance to disengage from any areas that American soldier's lives could be at extreme risk because of the information that is released.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Slutter McGee]

I read what you posted, and understood it.
I take a contrary position, I don't want our troops to be where they are. At all.
"Our troops" are involved in what amounts to criminal behavior, and the very best thing that could happen is for our foreign forces to be so utterly wiped out and defeated so soundly that the people of the US will rethink the madness of sending them.

:mad:

No. That is NOT the best thing that could happen. The deaths of thousands of troops is not the best thing that could happen. The idea is ridiculous. The best thing that could happen is for a President to withdraw the troop. Explain that we have been there too long. That we can't afford it. That we are through nation building. And that future wars will not be preemptive, will be fought to win, and will have a declaration of war.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[angelatc]

It's stories like this that make the link between the media/government very clear.

Obviously, the MSM does not release anything that's "hot" without first consulting with government.

I agree with Slutter McGee. I hate our foreign policy too, but I don't think that we should aid in the slaughter of our military to end the wars.

Any journalist in good conscience wouldn't want to release military secrets that would endanger Americans.

Wikileaks gave the information to 3 papers to ensure that the NYT couldn't just sit on it.

Telling the White House that the info was coming out would at least give them time to remove compromised individuals from delicate situations.