Dispute Over 'USA Today' NSA Scoop Has Top Journos Buzzing

By: Joe Strupp The USA Today phone records scoop, which is drawing increased scrutiny as phone companies dispute elements of the report, has also sparked interest among those in the news business, as well as longtime journalism observers.

Editors and veteran journalists who spoke with E&P are mixed on how the situation has been handled by all involved, with some claiming that the outcome could impact how news outlets report sensitive intelligence information in the future.

"This is shaping up to be a major test of the value of the press, the watchdog function of the press," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. "If the press turns out to be right, they will have done a real service. If it turns out to be wrong, it will be a real blow to all of us."

Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University, agreed with the seriousness of the situation, stressing that "nobody has denied the essence of that story, just that [the phone companies] gave documents to the government."

The story, which broke on May 11, revealed that phone records of millions of Americans had been provided to the National Security Agency, adding that Bell South, Verizon, and AT&T were the key companies involved. Verizon and Bell South have since denied that they turned over records, with Bell South demanding a retraction on Thursday. USA Today officials have defended the report, but said they are continuing to report and review material in the face of the denials.

"It's been a week since USA Today first reported the existence of a national phone database compiled by the government. That report has been independently confirmed by the New York Times, The Washington Post and others, and has not been challenged in any way by the government," USA Today Editor Ken Paulson said today in a statement to E&P.

"BellSouth is now disputing our account of the company's role in the database," he added. "Our sources have told us that our reporting to date accurately reflects their knowledge and understanding, but we will continue to investigate, and we will respond to BellSouth's letter. "

Meanwhile, the story and its fallout have generated buzz among journalists who disagree over what it will mean to the news industry, and how USA Today and others involved have handled it.

"It does seem odd that the phone companies would wait as long as they did to attack the story," said David Carlson, president of the Society of Professional Journalists. "There was a significant delay before anyone attacked the veracity of the story." But if it turns out USA Today was incorrect, he added, it could be a hit to future news coverage.

"If the story turns out to be wrong, it will hurt because the public will begin to distrust all of the reporting on domestic spying issues," Carlson said. "It also shows that we have to dig and verify stories and be careful about going the extra distance to get additional sources."

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the Associated Press, disagreed that the story's outcome would have a major impact on future reporting. "I'm not worried about this being some great cosmic change in the debate," she said. "People who believe that journalists ought to be looking into these kinds of issues won't have their minds changed by this particular story one way or another."

Carroll, a former Washington, D.C.-based editor, also stressed that intelligence reporting is among the most difficult beats and often requires a careful review before being criticized. "I haven't seen anything that would lead anyone to believe that the functional assertions of the USA Today story are not true," she said.

Dana Priest, who covers intelligence for The Washington Post and recently won a Pulitzer Prize for her stories revealing CIA secret prisons, also urged no quick judgments on USA Today. "I don't know what the real story is yet, I don't think we know," she said.

Priest also did not believe the outcome of this episode would have long-lasting journalistic effects. "Every story is different, every reporter is different," she told E&P. "These are really hard stories to do because everyone is so secretive."

Others have pointed to the fact that both USA Today and the phone companies could be technically correct. If the companies did not turn over the phone records, but they were provided through other means to the NSA, the story could remain solid.

"It is possible that records were taken through long-distance carriers," said Julia Wallace, editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Sometimes there are problems with stories, but sometimes it is people trying to poke little problems in stories."

Kovach stressed that all of those involved need to make clear exactly what happened: "There needs to be some clarity here by USA Today, the phone companies and the government."