Posted Tuesday June 27, 2006 at 06:53 PM
The NYT's decision (along with the LA Times and Wall Street Journal, lest we forget) to run the controversial banking records story has received a lot of criticism — and that criticism has met with its own criticism. Check out the hate and meta-hate here:
- Vice President Cheney was disturbed and offended that the NYT would "disclose vital national security programs," President Bush calls it "disgraceful." [NYT]
- The National Review Online agrees: They publish an editorial demanding that Bush withdraw the NY Times' press credentials. Columnist Rich Lowry agrees and thinks authors Eric Lichtblau and James Risen "should be subpoenaed, and if they refuse to reveal their sources they should go to jail." [NRO]
- White House Press Secretary Tony Snow says NY Times deserves "the brunt of criticism" for the story, but also says the Times' press credentials will not be withdrawn. [E&P]
...and, hitting back:
- Paul Mcleary marvels that the National Review actually asked the White House to crush a free press. [CJRDaily]
- Rep. Peter King says that "nobody elected the New York Times to anything," to which Hit and Run's David Wiegel responds, "You could nitpick and point out that the Constitutional Convention and all 50 states have voted to protect the Times by rejecting any abridgement of 'the freedom of speech, or of the press.'" [Slate]
- Over at WaPo, they can't believe how much the White House is hating on the NYT: Howie Kurtz says "Man, I have never seen this kind of Times-bashing before" and can't believe the conservative backlash; Dan Froomkin considers it "a monstrous charge for the White House to suggest that the press is essentially aiding and abetting the enemy." Especially when there's no evidence. [WaPo]
- Dude, this is the most secretive administration in history, says Arianna: "An aggressive press is more vital to the well-being of our democracy than ever." [HuffPo]
