More Media Truthiness

Since publication of The New York Times scoop last Dec. 16 on National Security Agency warrantless eavesdropping -- which later won a Pulitzer -- one side issue has been the hint that the paper had the basic story before election day, more than a year earlier, and held it.

Critics have suggested that if it had been published earlier it might have cost President Bush re-election. Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, has given varying answers about this. Did he mislead readers last December by stating that he had held the article for "a year" to place that after the election? Later he said, vaguely, "more than year."

In January, the paper's public editor, Byron Calame, complained that he had encountered "unusual difficulty" in trying to determine when exactly the paper learned of the surveillance. "The New York Times's explanation...was woefully inadequate," wrote Calame at that time. "And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."

Now, in the Sunday Times this week, Calame has produced a tough-minded column, revealing new information and offering fresh criticism. In the end, Keller admits that his dating of the delay had been "inelegant."

This is how Calame starts: "Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?" He continues: "I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election." He adds, "Since the Times article appeared, I have grown increasingly intrigued by changes in the way the delay has been described in the paper and in comments by Mr. Keller."

Keller, who wouldn’t answer any questions about this from Calame for an earlier column, did talk to the public editor for the new report.

"The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election," Keller tells Calame. For a full accounting of why the story was delayed, see www.nytimes.com for the entire column.

Following that summary, Calame asks: So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had delayed publication for "a year,” specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election?

“It was probably inelegant wording,” Keller replies. Later he adds, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

Calame concludes: 'Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight."