Washington Bureau Chief for New York Times Defends Printing "Secrets"

The decision to print "state secrets" is not something the media should take lightly, but even when the country's highest elected official asks that a story be withheld, the decision must come from the media, not the government.

Philip Taubman, Washington D.C. Bureau Chief for the New York Times, said he never expected to make those kinds of decisions when he entered journalism 35 years ago, but it comes with the territory when you are the Washington bureau chief for the Times.
Taubman and his fellow editors at the New York Times are called on to make that type of decision regularly, he said, in his presentation "Why We Publish Secrets" at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University.

He stands behind the Times decisions to print the National Security Administration wire-tapping story last December and the decision earlier this year to print a story showing how intelligence officials trace bank accounts to terrorists. Citing everything from Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Taubman defended the paper's decision to print the stories.
The decision is vindicated by the national debate that has followed both stories and the questions of the potential abuse of power from the intelligence community and the White House. Taubman began his lecture with a brief description of his December 5, 2005, meeting with President Bush, when the president and national security advisers asked the New York Times not to print the wire-tapping story.

Some of the president's arguments were convincing and required a great deal of consideration. Others had already been evaluated in the 13 months the newspaper had known about the story and held off printing, waiting until it was certain all the facts were correct and that the potential damage to national security was at a minimum.

Taubman said he has been accused of holding the story as a political maneuver (The newspaper was aware of it before Bush was re-elected) and of printing it as a political maneuver. Both accusations are dead wrong, he said. "I have never in my 35 years as a journalist printed or held a story based on the political implications," he said. He has and still does withhold stories because of their security implications.

Taubman said there are details of the wire-tapping story, including specifics on the technical aspects, that will never be printed because they do not contribute to the public debate on the issue and because they would hinder national security efforts. In addition, the paper, and several others, are aware of American operations in many places that are not violating American law or American principals and will not be reported because they are issues of national security.

"When we walked into the Oval Office to meet with the President, I was there as a citizen first and an editor second," he said.
As it was, the newspaper held the story for another 10 days after the meeting with the President before deciding to print it. "We do not rush to print everything we know. We exercise restraint. Sometimes, we make a decision to print and sometimes, we do agree to hold the story," Taubman said.

Audience members challenged Taubman's right to make that kind of decision, but the veteran newsman stuck firm in his decision and the conviction that it was the right thing to do. "What gives you the right to question the recommendation of the President of the United States when he obviously has more information and is charged with protecting us?" one young woman demanded.

Again, Taubman relied on history to answer the questions. Quoting from former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and again from Thomas Jefferson, Taubman pointed to the need for a free press to be independent of the government so that it can be the watchdog for the government.

In writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Black opined, regarding the publication of the Pentagon Papers, "The government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people."

That, Taubman said, is exactly why the New York Times has continued to print stories that sometimes the nation's top officials think need to be suppressed.

The debate over the issues brought forth in the December 16, 2005, story continues and though the reporters were awarded a Pulitzer Prize for their efforts, a federal investigation into the "leaks" to the press which brought about the story continues as well.
.