The role of the NYTimes

A friend of mine wote:

I'm really disturbed to hear that Bill Kellor and Arthur Sulzberger sat on the story for a year, and then he met with them a few days before publication, begging him not to publish it. Don't you think that the Times should have reported that? Again, how the Times handles themselves when THEY ARE PART OF THE STORY, has been appalling

My response went like this:

I am saddened that the NYTimes sat on this story for a year, and only went public before the reporting journalists book came out in a seperate side deal. It just begs the question(s) of;

If no book deal, when would they have reported this story?
If not now, then when and under what circumstances would they have published?
And finally, what responsibility does the press have to report this information after sufficient fact checking?

I understand that this is sensitive and classified information involved that "might" protect us against some future attack, but doesn't the press have the responsibility to report violations and keep the government honest. I am all for fact checking and making sure that information is complete and certain, but assuming that is done, what is the purpose of sitting on the story? Too often now the NYTimes has been part of the story and that reduces credibility, and fans the flames of its political opponents.

One thing I always respected about the big 3 TV reporters was they viewed there roles as reporting the news, not making the news. They very rarely (Rather) or never (Browak, Jennings) gave their opinions on the news or the makers of the news and that was a very important to me. Even Brian Williams NBC new anchor failed to give an editorials when reporting from New Orleans during the Katrina disaster. He said my job is to report as I see it, not tell people what to think about this or put his personal slant on the news. I think too often newspapers and the reporters cross that line in order to gain more press (and more dollars), and the line between news and opinion becomes finer until you can no longer tell the difference. This is certainly true on TV, where it is nothing but screaming heads, and very little straight forward reporting anymore.

Dr. Justin Frank asks a very important question on this topic in his blog at the Huffington Post:

In today’s (12/26) Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that the White House actively pressures the editors of major newspapers to withhold stories that could damage the Bush administration’s image and reputation with American citizens.

The important question this revelation raises is, “What else don’t we know?” What other information, gathered by professional reporters and editors, has been kept from the American public.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

My friend also recommended reading "Tragedy & Farce", by John Nichols on Media Reform.