Comments on: NY Times to black out portions of op-ed

NY Times to black out portions of op-ed

mulligan — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:06:45 -0800

Blacked out text in your newspaper. The White House has attempted to heavily censor parts of a proposed op-ed about Iran. So tomorrow, the NYT will run the op-ed with black redaction marks, and provide a list of non-classified sources for the exact material the administration claims is sensitive.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:13:46 -0800

By: eustacescrubb

eustacescrubb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:14:05 -0800

Things were much easier for the NYT when it was playing stenographer to Karl Rove and beating the drums of war back in '03.

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:19:11 -0800

sorry, where's the link to the news about tomorrow's publication?

By: quin

quin — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:20:05 -0800

The CIA reviewed the article and cleared it for publication, but the White House put the brakes on it, saying it contained classified information that the CIA missed. So once again the CIA and the White House disagree on the classification status of something. You know what? I'm gonna go with the CIA on this one, they have a history of being pretty good at dealing with classified material (Ok, not a perfect history, but a damn site better than that of the White House.)

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:20:46 -0800

You know, it's sad that newspapers not taking orders from the white house is noteworthy.

By: Bromius

Bromius — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:21:15 -0800

Since when was the White House so concerned about the release of classified information?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:21:16 -0800

"...the Times will instruct readers where they can find the omitted information in other (unclassified) publications -- like, for instance, in Leverett's paper on the same topic called "Dealing with Tehran," published through the Century Foundation." His paper is also available here.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:21:31 -0800

i'm outraged. no, really, i am. totally.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:22:34 -0800

This will wendell.

By: niles

niles — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:23:38 -0800

And we'll see a spate of right-wingers and neo-cons decrying the publication of the editorial, claiming that the New York Times is once again on the side of the 'terrurists' and a danger to American FreedomTM. I should hope not. While I couldn't find the article online from the links, this looks like Bushco has gone a bit far. I am a mostly right-winger (you know, half the stuff on this site drives me crazy), but I really think this is a bit much. Does anyone have a link to the article (would it be online?), or I just missing the obvious page here?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:24:24 -0800

sorry, where's the link to the news about tomorrow's publication? Tomorrow and Today: Saudi Palace Politics & Flynt Leverett Stirs Congress

"For those up at 3 am when the morning newspapers are uploaded to the web, rush to the Washington Post and the New York Times. Unless lawyers or other news get in the way, some very important pieces will be up. The first in the New York Times will be a very cool op-ed that I can't say more about right now."

By: Plutor

Plutor — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:24:49 -0800

odinsdream: "You know, it's sad that newspapers not taking orders from the white house is noteworthy." I'd say the noteworthy parts here are 1) the white house ordering a newspaper to redact parts of something, 2) that something being being an op-ed column, not a breaking-news article, 3) the newspaper choosing to point out the specific redactions, 4) and showing readers the redacted information by quoting it from non-classified sources. All of which would have been just as noteworthy twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago.

By: niles

niles — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:25:35 -0800

Or it's not published yet....I thought that was just the list.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:29:51 -0800

Or it's not published yet....I thought that was just the list. That's right. The op-ed is scheduled to appear in tomorrow's (Friday's) New York Times. Earlier this week ...

Iran Article Is Blocked Amid Dispute on Cause Critic Accuses Bush of Silencing Dissent Analysis: Gag Claim on Iran

By: gcbv

gcbv — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:30:01 -0800

Since when was the White House so concerned about the release of classified information? If this could only be said at a press conference in the midst of a heated melee.

By: jourman2

jourman2 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:32:09 -0800

Wait, why can the Century foundation publish the info without fear of retribution, while the Times is prohibited?

By: krippledkonscious

krippledkonscious — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:33:34 -0800

Huh. Sounds like a good way to tease some info out of the adminstration. Some former official should just write up an Op-Ed full of WAGs and complete conjecture about what's going on, and then we can see what gets blacked out in the printed edition. Kinda like: NYT: "There were no WMDs! Never were!" Snow: [No response, twiddles thumbs.] NYT: "There were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda!" Snow: [Whistles "Stardust," looks around.] NYT: "Cheney eats baby toes!" Snow: "That's outrageous!" NYT: "Gotcha, Bitch!"

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:35:00 -0800

[Off-topic, but related, kinda, in a long-stretch sorta way -- US To Declassify Secrets After 25 Years.]

By: premiumpolar

premiumpolar — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:39:34 -0800

It would be awesome if the online version of tomorrow's article had the omitted parts encased in 'spoiler tags' like a lot of tv show fan forums do.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:41:18 -0800

Correction: 'Registration free' access to the NYTimes article cited above: Iran Article Is Blocked Amid Dispute on Cause.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:42:11 -0800

Harry Potter and the [Redacted by White House]

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:46:03 -0800

Know what would be funny? If the web version of the Op-Ed column read like this:

Iraq is sliding into civil war according to the following documents: <span style="background:black">CIA research group ...

That would be funny.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:46:18 -0800

I can't help but wonder how much information is classified simply because it would justifiably outrage the population and cause chaos, and how much is classified to conceal criminal activity on the part of government officials.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:52:20 -0800

That so much looks like nonsense. Ignorance of past facts by the "censors" could explain their attempt to censor again, or more likely they didn't want to have the piece published on NYT. All I learned is that the WH can't phone call CIA's Publication Review Board.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:02:02 -0800

jourman2: Wait, why can the Century foundation publish the info without fear of retribution, while the Times is prohibited? Because a lot of people read the Times. Not so many people are likely to read the Century Foundation's report.

By: jourman2

jourman2 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:04:38 -0800

jourman2: Wait, why can the Century foundation publish the info without fear of retribution, while the Times is prohibited? russilwvong: Because a lot of people read the Times. Not so many people are likely to read the Century Foundation's report. Well now they will

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:18:01 -0800

"I can't help but wonder how much information is classified simply because it would justifiably outrage the population and cause chaos, and how much is classified to conceal criminal activity on the part of government officials." Those don't have to be mutually exclusive. Yeah. This pisses me off. Yeah. I saw Leverett on CSPAN earlier today. Fairly level headed cat I thought. To paraphrase an old joke: Politics is a game with objectives and no rules. Analysis is a game with rules and no objectives. The Bush Administration is a game whose object is to bring rules into the subjective. When the last is applied to "theology" I typically don't think of it as much of a pejorative as I mean it to be here. Just pissing all over our best men. Not to mention the foundational principles. And for something so petty as a NYT op ed piece. Unbelievable.

By: winks007

winks007 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:31:37 -0800

I, for one, am not shocked. History has shown that there are alot of "things-that-we-think-you-are-better-off-not-knowing".

By: krippledkonscious

krippledkonscious — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:34:40 -0800

And for something so petty as a NYT op ed piece. Unbelievable. Truly! I should think any self-respecting right-winger would give two pisses about the FRONT page of the NYT, much less bother slumming around the Op-Ed area. All this kind of move does is lend credence to your opposition's stance, and give the tin-foiled set reason to dance. I've never seen anything as mismanaged as this administration's handling of... well, just about everything. I liked it better when I used my own imagination to think up conspiracies. This is like reading a bad Michael Crichton political thriller and the villain's name is "Evil McKilledthedudes."

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:41:27 -0800

I'm pretty sure that "Evil McKilledthedudes" was a Dickens character. Or a McDonalds sandwich. One of those two.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:45:55 -0800

"Evil McKilledthedudes" is a sockpuppet waiting to happen.

By: genghis

genghis — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:57:45 -0800

The Times could, ya know, grow a backbone and just print the damned article.

By: damehex

damehex — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:04:44 -0800

Nah, the blacked-out text is way better for getting people interested.

By: ageispolis

ageispolis — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:11:24 -0800

You gotta love the ACCESSDENIED tag. Good for the Times for doing this. I'm not complaining.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:16:29 -0800

The CIA reviewed the article and cleared it for publication, but the White House put the brakes on it, saying it contained classified information that the CIA missed. Because of course you should trust politically-endebted, boot-licking lackeys to know better than people whose career it is to analyze and determine threat. Intel stovepiping -- basically, politically-motivated skipping of steps in the intel chain -- is what got this Administration into Iraq. These morons have evidently learned nothing. How many thousands of American soldiers need to die before they admit to being wrong about something? We're not even counting non-Americans, because evidently that's not much of a preoccupation.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:17:32 -0800

ericb writes "And we'll see a spate of right-wingers and neo-cons decrying the publication of the editorial, claiming that the New York Times is once again on the side of the 'terrurists' and a danger to American Freedom^TM." When do these idiots ever *not* do that anyway?

By: krippledkonscious

krippledkonscious — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:24:00 -0800

As ageispolis said: Definitely good for the Times - ethically, politically and commercially. This whole situation is basically the same thing as when Comedy Central didn't show Muhammad on South Park. Times gets the win, Bush Administration looks nutless. Or guilty. Actually, both.

By: JWright

JWright — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:36:48 -0800

This seems more of an effort to make the press look like a villain, than it is to keep this information away from the public. BushCo has to know that anything blacked out is only going to be MORE intensely scrutinized than it would have been if they'd just let it go.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:37:55 -0800

First the AP lost Iraq, now this. Traitors.

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:46:49 -0800

The Times could, ya know, grow a backbone and just print the damned article. Nah, the blacked-out text is way better for getting people interested. Precisely. The blackout plus the informative sidebar is like flipping a great big middle finger at the White House, in a far more visible way than simply printing the column. It draws attention and lets more people know about the story behind the column. It also adds a "Heh heh! You got PWNED!" angle that makes the paper look like the gutsy David to Bush's Goliath, which is a role journalists like to envision themselves in. Here's hoping they find they actually enjoy playing it.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:49:51 -0800

Haven't we seen this kind of [Expletive Deleted] from the White House in previous administrations? Oh, right, these are the same [Expletive Deleted] that were working there back then too.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:53:24 -0800

Nah, the blacked-out text is way better for getting people interested. Are you sure it's the NYT working the strings on that front? Maybe Bush wants us to see the inflamitory report but couldn't just come right out and hand it over without creating a serious incident (and/or sounding like A-jad's ranting).

By: 1adam12

1adam12 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:46:25 -0800

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:55:23 -0800

I suggest you read the article, 1adam12. As former officials, Mr. Leverett and Ms. Mann are obligated to permit the government to review writings for publication to ensure that secrets are not inadvertently disclosed. Such reviews are limited to searches for classified information, not policy questions.

By: crispynubbins

crispynubbins — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:09:28 -0800

They've pulled this trick before. It only took 25 years to get to the truth. And they were wrong about the subversive parrot, too. Given their credibility, it's most likely they're wrong about this as well.

By: BillsR100

BillsR100 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:54:50 -0800

I honestly avoid political posts here in Metafilter, but this one got my attention. This scares me. Nuff said.

By: 1adam12

1adam12 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:26:31 -0800

Pollomacho: thanks for the quote. I did in fact read the article, but I'm interested in the actual legal background. I was hoping someone could point me to a law code citation, so that I could ask my civil procedure prof about it.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:22:29 -0800

aaaaaaaaaaaand here it is

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:44:04 -0800

The bit about this that I don't quite understand how the White House has this kind of power to begin with. Could someone more familiar with the law that gives the President the power to block publication of anything in civilian newspapers please point me in the right direction? Actually I'm quite sure that the NYT could publish the piece if they had their hands on a manuscript already. If there was a 'window' between when the article was cleared by the CIA and when it was "uncleared" by the whitehouse, and the guy gave it to the NYT during that window, he wouldn't be breaking the law. Once the NYT has it, they can do whatever they want to with it. On the other hand, if the white house 'uncleared' the document before it was sent to the NYT, then the guy would be breaking the law if he even *sent* the article to the NYT. Still, the NYT could still publish it. So, did the NYT ever get an original copy? I was under the impression that they did. IMO this is mostly just a gimmic, but an effective on.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:12:18 -0800

It appears that the letters have all been changed to x'es, but word length has been retained.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:19:19 -0800

The problem with Tony Snow's argument that a democratic government can censor news based on national security concerns, not policy concerns, is that the Bush administration's entire policy is centered around calling everything and anything a goddamn "national security concern" if it might be embarassing to the Party. When we have a hawkish administration using the press, NY Times included, to warm up the public for reinstating the draft so that we can go to war with Iran, let anyone who claims the Bush administration is above fascist intentions take this as a fair warning.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:16:42 -0800

Why do I hate America?

By: bruce

bruce — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:16:46 -0800

i am outraged. i used to work for xxxxxx and when my team was in xxxxxxxxx, we xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx and when i was subpoenaed before the grand jury, i testified that xxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and then x xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx and somehow the media got ahold of it and i ended up covered with xxxx.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:23:24 -0800

Excuse me? Dear? I'll have you know the Supreme Court has ROUNDLY rejected prior restrain.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:28:58 -0800

Considering that citations have been provided and that word length may have been maintained, I expect it won't be long before someone posts an uncensored version of this op-ed. How long has it been since an article in a newspaper has been blacked out in such a manner?

By: R. Mutt

R. Mutt — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:52:55 -0800

xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx x xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx x xx x x xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xx

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:11:16 -0800

It's been so good to have the adults in charge these past 6 years, don't you agree? You children mind your mouths or they'll be washed out with soap.

By: lalochezia

lalochezia — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:34:00 -0800

Anyone for a game of Mad Libs?

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:31:57 -0800

The redacted Iran op-ed revealed.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:52:58 -0800

awesome thanks ericb. caught leverett on cspan last night - he's the real deal.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:15:53 -0800

CIA Chief Evil McKilledthedudes weekly report: "Mr. President the reptilians from Sirius are calling us about the monthly water shipment. Apparently some red 'lectroids have escaped the Nevada holding facility at area 51 as well. Hitler's brain deep within the hollow earth has again been directing undead cyborgs against the the Sasquatch people so they will have to continue to wear their stealth fields. Last November's time travel back to the JFK trip through Dallas resulted in a success, he was assassinated and history has been re-written. We've blamed it on several clones named Oswald but we're working with LSD to brainwash someone into killing RFK, and prevent Cuba from nuclear -" Bush: "That's great, uh, Earl, but we've got some majer modern problms here. Hne hne hne." McKilledthedudes: "Yes, sir. Is it the Iranian hyperCrichtoniansuperweapon or the Iraqi Clanciandoomsday -" Bush: "Naw, naw, see. What's happened is, see, someone from yer organism has written a paper, see, in the NEW YORK Timesssuh. Op-ed. About Iran-U.S. relationsss." McKilledthedudes (not following): "Yes, sir. We approved it." Bush: "Hne hne hne. I know, see. But you didn't look at the actual wordsss." McKilledthedudes: "Sir?" Bush: "It looks like uh, hne, a reglr column. But chew look at the wordsss. Hne. Gulbuddin. Hekmatyar. Kitab al-Azif. Hezbollah. Look at the syntaxsssh. And how the words are yewsd. The intonashonsss. Abdul Alhazred." McKilledthedudes (scans): "My God! He's encoded a spell for...! Sir, without the constant massive burning of world's supply of oil the Great Old Ones would wake and return! The sacrifice of Princess Diana to the Great Wyrm will have been in vein!" Bush: "Git right on it. Micky. Yew know how tricky those Timesh people can be."

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:43:12 -0800

More links in this updated post (now deleted.)

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:44:47 -0800

In other news: AT&T and lawyers for media groups including Wired News spar in a San Francisco courtroom over whether whistle-blower documents in the NSA spy case should be made public.

By: joedharma

joedharma — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:01:43 -0800

Thanks ericb, I was wondering if anyone had done that yet...

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:38:45 -0800

all i want for xmas is an <img src="">...

By: Talez

Talez — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 03:53:08 -0800

*sigh*

By: The Deej

The Deej — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:10:23 -0800

From the FPP that will probably be deleted as a double: This was after the "White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process and demanded substantial deletions." Where have I been? I always thought I was in tune with how things worked. But this is the first I have even heard of a "normal prepublication review process" for the press. Please... someone tell me I am not alone in this. I feel like I am in an episode of The Twilight Zone. The last living person to find out something the rest of the world has always known. I need a Long Island Iced Tea.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:12:40 -0800

I printed this out and read it very carefully. I never would have known it existed if not for the controversy.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:31:19 -0800

this is the first I have even heard of a "normal prepublication review process" for the press. see Pollomacho's comment.

By: unSane

unSane — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:33:08 -0800

Again, the "normal prepublication review process" probably refers to reviews of materials published by former administration officials rather than a blanket prepublication review process. IE If you worked for the CIA, you have to clear what your write with them first. In this case the CIA didn't redact anything, but passed it to the White House for review (presumably since it contained references to the White House), at which point redaction kicked in for whatever reason. Normal stuff.

By: The Deej

The Deej — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:36:20 -0800

Thanks for the clarification... but even in that context I was not aware of it.

By: hermitosis

hermitosis — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:40:59 -0800

Even with an understanding of what's going on, seeing those black bars gives me the chills. And while it's great that the Times is electing to publicize that it has been censored and draw attention to that insidious fact, it sets a precedent. The next time it happens it will be just as infuriating, but less shocking. Eventually when it happens people will simply shrug and wait, assuming the information will be uncovered sooner or later. This is a victory for censorship and government secrecy no matter how you spin it.

By: betaray

betaray — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:35:47 -0800

I agree this sounds like the best thing that could've happened to Leverett's OpEd. How many people do you think have heard about this OpEd now compared to this American Propsepct story from about six months ago or had even ever heard of the Centry Foundation? I guess the reason good triumphs over evil is that evil is so damn stupid. As for the "prepublication review process". This is part of the contract you sign when you join the CIA. From what Leverett claims, it's not that the CIA passed this to the Whitehouse for review, he says: My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

By: betaray

betaray — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:38:39 -0800

Oops forgot my source. That quote is from here.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:08:34 -0800

Misinformer of the Year: ABC

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:16:22 -0800

CIA panel blocks book by outed agent Valerie Plame