White House asks NYT to remove sub-headline from CIA tape story

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 03:47 AM

Quote:

The White House on Wednesday took the rare step of publicly asking The New York Times to change the sub-headline of a story on the destruction of CIA tapes showing the interrogations of suspected terrorists.

At issue is the story’s sub-headline that stated: “White House Role Was Wider Than It Said.” The White House called this sub-headline inaccurate and demanded that it be corrected.

“Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter,” stated White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. “Furthermore, we have not described – neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.”

The White House argues that the newspaper article implies that “there is an effort to mislead in this matter,” adding that such a conclusion is “pernicious and troubling.”

This is a good move in the ironic situation that the government has to hold the media accountable instead of the other way around...

I'm surprised they don't do it more often, but then again, if they did this everytime a situation like this happened, there wouldn't be time for anything else...

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 03:57 AM

I am very concerned about freedom of speech here. The white house cannot and should not ask the New York Times to print or not to print anything.
That's just plain Freedom 101, as I see it. Unless someone is threatened or defamed without grounds, there isn't even a law suit here.
Yes, this is worrisome. Very worrisome indeed.

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I am very concerned about freedom of speech here. The white house cannot and should not ask the New York Times to print or not to print anything.
That's just plain Freedom 101, as I see it. Unless someone is threatened or defamed without grounds, there isn't even a law suit here.
Yes, this is worrisome. Very worrisome indeed.

Someone WAS defamed without grounds...

The White House has been VERY adament that "we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush’s immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter."...

And the NYT stated the opposite...

If the White House stated that the sky is blue, and the NYT ran a headline saying "The White House says the sky is purple.", are you telling me the White House has no recourse to correct them?...

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 12-20-2007, 05:22 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/wa...html?th&emc=th

Quote:

Current and former intelligence officials have said that the tapes of harsh interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in 2002 were made in part to document the methods being used for the first time by C.I.A. officers. But, they said, officials soon decided that taping sessions was a bad idea and could endanger interrogators if they were ever leaked.

The New York Times reported on Wednesday that discussions about the proposal to destroy the tapes involved four high-level White House lawyers: Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

In a statement on Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Dana M. Perino, criticized a subheading on the Times article that said, “White House role was wider than it said,” noting that the White House has “not publicly commented on the issue,” except to note the president’s “immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter.” She called any suggestion that might be taken from the subheading to indicate that there was an effort by the White House to mislead the public on the videotapes issue “pernicious and troubling.”

Citing the Justice Department’s preliminary investigation, Ms. Perino said White House officials had been asked not to discuss the videotapes and declined to say who on President Bush’s staff was aware of the tapes. “We have not described, neither to highlight nor to minimize, the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter,” she said.

The New York Times said it would publish a correction on Thursday, and noted that the White House “had not challenged the content of our story,” the newspaper’s spokeswoman, Catherine J. Mathis, said in a statement.

At a confirmation hearing for President Bush’s nominee for deputy attorney general on Wednesday, lawmakers voiced frustration about being denied details of the videotapes’ destruction and urged the nominee, Mark Filip, to cooperate with Congressional inquiries.

Judge Filip, now on the federal bench in Chicago, told lawmakers he might have counseled the C.I.A. not to destroy the tapes.

“It might be the better practice to keep those in any event, given the interest in the subject matter that was on the tapes,” Mr. Filip told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Reporting was contributed by Steven Lee Myers, Philip Shenon, David Johnston and Mark Mazzetti.

I think the sub headline was within reason. It went along with the story as in one of the things people get out of the story is "Hey-so the white house was more involved than I thought."
I don't see what's wrong with stating that up front as a high point of the article.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/media/1420-white-house-asks-nyt-remove-sub-headline-cia-tape-story.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	12-22-2007 08:29 AM