Opinion: Early Returns on Baquet’s Explanation
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Remember, you can comment on the editor’s note here, or in the comments below.
Some preliminary blogosphere reactions to Baquet’s column:
* Former Times staffer Ken Reich at Take Back the Times says: ‘For me the bottom line is that the press, on its side, should go back to its World War II policies and, fundamentally, side with the war effort.’
* Armed Liberal at windsofchange.net says: ‘By the standard Baquet holds up here, any and all surveillance programs are up for disclosure, no matter how legal or effective - simply because the controversy exists. I guess I’d like to know where Baquet draws the line.’
* Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt: ‘Only a fool would believe [that the LAT is not out to get the president] given the Los Angeles Times’ endless and almost unbroken war on the war over the past three years. And if Baquet believes it, he’s completely out of touch with his paper’s staff and their agenda journalism.’
* Don Surber says Baquet gave a ‘reasonable explanation’: ‘At least [the] LAT recognizes that there is an enemy.’
* Nathan Goulding at the National Review‘s Media Blog: ‘It surprises me greatly that the L.A. Times considers itself to be the best judge of both ‘legitimate public interest’ as well as the ‘cost to counterterrorism efforts.’ Herein lies the arrogance.’
* Patrick Frey at Patterico’s Pontifications: ‘Baquet fails to offer any compelling justification for eviscerating this legal and successful counterterrorism program. And Baquet fails to recognize that his decision was made on the basis of woefully inadequate information.’
* Political Fan writes: ‘The LA Times views the ‘potential’ abusive power of the Bush administration to be greater than that of the terrorists.’
* Blue Crab Boulevard writes: ‘Nowhere in my well-thumbed copy of [the constitution] do I see any mention of the press having an oversight role on the government.’
* Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly‘s Political Animal: ‘Can anyone think of a serious case in the past few decades of a newspaper withholding an entire story like this simply because the government asked them to?’
* Ron Chusid of the Democratic Daily summarizes blogger reaction to the publication of the story: ‘While it is impossible to survery all the blogs, I found that generally the centrist blogs and those which describe themselves as ‘moderate Republicans’ were supportive of the newspapers, while the far right continued their authoritarian streak. ‘