Paulson Defends NSA Coverage, Calls Story a 'Challenge'

By: Joe Strupp USA Today Editor Ken Paulson defended his paper's reporting on the National Security Agency phone record database program, adding that today's follow up story and editor's note revealing some errors in an initial May report should not diminish the paper's overall accuracy on a serious subject.

"Today's story and editor's note is both a reaffirmation and reappraisal of our earlier reporting," he told E&P. "It reaffirms that there is a national database run by the National Security Agency." But he admitted that it is also an acknowledgement that there were elements of the previous story that cannot be confirmed, specifically that two telecommunications companies, BellSouth and Verizon, contracted with the NSA to provide phone data.

"There is no more complex a story than a report on a secret national security program," Paulson said in defense of the paper's reporting challenges. "There is only a very small universe of people who can provide information in the first place, and even fewer who are in a position to confirm it. You can't go to a library to get this kind of information."

Paulson said it was important for USA Today to update the story and reveal that one part of it could not be verified. But he also stressed that the important and most serious elements of the story -- that a secret program collecting phone data about citizens existed -- was accurate.

"This was a story that became much easier to report after the initial publication," Paulson said, pointing to the fact that the paper has since confirmed the database's existence through 19 members of congress. "Suddenly, there was a new pool of information."

At least seven reporters were involved in the reporting and fact-checking that resulted in USA Today's follow-up story and editor's note, Paulson said. The reporters' initial directive after the first story on May 11 drew some criticism from the telecommunications companies involved. The reporters' directive was to confirm the story's most controversial elements, and find any new information.

"Some were on it all the time, some on a spot basis," Paulson said of the reporters. "Our goal was to establish what was in the database. The intention was to ratify our story, but we discovered that some of that contradicted what we reported and we set it straight."

Paulson said he was wiling to take the heat from critics if it meant that the paper was completely accurate and forthcoming. "We think a big part of maintaining credibility is also telling when some details of your story don't hold up," he said. "We felt we needed to give our readers as much information as possible."

The editor did not blame reporter Leslie Cauley, who authored the May 1 story, praising her work and describing the sources involved as "acting in good faith." Still, he declined to be more specific on how the incorrect information ended up in the paper or further describe the sourcing. "We can't go there," he said.