The stars and gripes

When the New York Times revealed, on June 23, that the US had secretly monitored millions of international bank transfers without court approval since 2001, the White House response was predictable.

“The disclosure of this programme is disgraceful,” said President Bush. “We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that programme, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.”
Vice-president Dick Cheney tightened the screws: “Some in the Press, in particular the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programmes.”
The White House Press secretary, former Fox News reporter Tony Snow, raised the ante, warning journalists “to think long and hard about whether a public’s right to know in some cases might override somebody’s right to live”. As the message percolated through Republican ranks it became more threatening. “Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything,” fulminated New York congressman Peter King, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee. “And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, leftwing agenda before the interests of the American people.”
King demanded that the Times be prosecuted. Pat Roberts, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wondered if the Press — the Times story was followed up by the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal — had compromised national security. Finally, senator Jim Bunning told Kentucky’s Courier-Journal, “In my opinion that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason.”
This was red meat to conservative bloggers and broadcast pundits. “Sometimes you have to wonder if the New York Times is on the Al-Qaeda payroll,” pondered anklebitingpundits.com.
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and Dean Baquet, the editor of the Los Angeles Times, cite the media’s public interest obligation to scrutinise government as justification for the story.
But to anyone who has watched the White House’s duel with the media, the affair has a deeper resonance. “The media is currently the only effective check on the administration,” says Jonathan Turley, professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. He believes Congress has virtually abrogated its oversight role. In contrast to the Watergate scandal, when Congress, the courts and the Press confronted the White House, he says this time the media are acting alone.
Hence the orchestrated political campaign “to chill the last institution that is openly criticising the president”.
But he believes this strategy will fail and risks a public backlash. “The American media has deep and firm roots,” says Turley. “It has been tested before by other presidents, like Richard Nixon. It has never backed down. And it is not going to back down to George Bush. It may be that we are headed towards a major confrontation.”
“He [Bush] has largely dismissed it in the past. But it seems to bother him more and more. And now he’s turned to Congress and asked, ‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome Press?’,” says Turley.