Defending the 12th century since the 14th; blogging since the 21st.

Catholicism, Conservatism, the Middle Ages, Opera, and Historical and Literary Objets d'Art blogged by a suburban dad who teaches law and writes stuff.

"Very fun." -- J. Bottum, Editor, FIRST THINGS

"Too modest" -- Elinor Dashwood

"Perhaps the wisest man on the Web" -- Henry Dieterich

"Hat tip: me (but really Cacciaguida)" -- Diana Feygin, Editor, THE YALE FREE PRESS

"You are my sire. You give me confidence to speak. You raise my heart so high that I am no more I." -- Dante

"Fabulous!"-- Warlock D.J. Prod of Didsbury

Who was Cacciaguida? See Dante's PARADISO, Cantos XV, XVI, & XVII.

E-mail me

Friday, June 30, 2006
The New York Times on trial, possibly, we can hope

It was a one-editorial day at The Wall Street Journal, as they tore into the NY Times for revealing the government's anti-terrorist-financing strategies, and also for misleadingly claiming that The Wall Street Journal did the exact same things.

The editorial details the differences in the path that lead each paper to its story, and differences in the story themselves, and adds: "We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters." It continues:
The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't.
After detailing editor Bill Keller's high-liberal sententiousness and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s up-against-the-wall-baby speech at a recent college commencement, the Journal concludes that The New York Times "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it."

The editorial goes on to recall the treasonous reporting of Col. Macormick's Chicago Tribune after the Battle of Midway (treasonous, in a legally precise sense, because it gave vital information to the Japanese). The Journal praises the government's eventual decision not to prosecute Macormick and the Tribune under the Espionage Act of 1917, but warns of the lessons to be learned.

The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, is going for it: Leaks and the Law: the case for prosecuting the New York Times.