How 'LAT' Went With Bank Records Story, As 'WSJ' Remains Silent

By: E&P Staff The New York Times has borne the brunt of critics' attacks -- from both high and low places -- for publishing its banking records surveillance scoop, even though the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal followed close behind. How did those papers happen to get the same story, and decide to publish just hours after the Times?

The co-author of the Times' piece, Eric Lichtblau, told E&P last week that the article was basically done weeks ago, but extensive discussions with Bush administration officials delayed publication, allowing others to "catch up."

In a Howard Kurtz story in The Washington Post today, Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, said his paper had the story last Wednesday but did not reach a final decision on running it "because, among other things, we hadn't sat down yet with people at Treasury to give them a full chance to tell us why we should or shouldn't do it." At the same time, he said, "we were leaning toward publishing."

The story continues:

"At about 7 p.m. the next day, McManus was meeting with Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey when another department staffer handed Levey a BlackBerry and he announced: 'Well, the New York Times has posted its story' on its Web site.

"While a Treasury official did tell him that it would be nice if the Los Angeles paper decided not to run the story as a 'symbolic gesture,' the discussion was rendered moot, McManus said. Levey then went on the record to defend the program, as he did with other newspapers, including The Post, which began playing catch-up that evening....

"The Wall Street Journal had been working on the banking story for a long period of time but did not reach the point of having enough information to publish until Thursday afternoon, according to a staffer who declined to be identified because the newspaper is making no public comment. The Journal does not know why Treasury officials made no appeal against publication in that paper, but editors assume that by then the officials were resigned to the fact that the details were coming out, the staffer said."