'Wash Post,' Peggy Noonan Weigh in On Bank Records Scoop

By: E&P Staff Controversy surrounding The New York Times, and other papers, revealing details about the so-called "Swift" banking records surveillance continues to swirl on Thursday, after President Bush continued his attack Wednesday. Congress will consider two resolutions: one from Republicans that backs the program and condemns the newspapers, another from Democrats that merely backs the program. Various calls continue to be heard from conservative congressmen concerning revoking the Times credentials.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post came out with an editorial backing the Times, while the Wall Street Journal -- which also published a scoop on the subject -- remained silent, except for a few passages in a Peggy Noonan column.

Noonan observed: "It is kind of crazy that the Times would do two stories that expose, and presumably hinder, the government's efforts. But then it strikes me as crazy that every paper that has reported the latest story--that would include The Wall Street Journal--would do so. Based on the evidence that has become public so far, the Journal, like the Times, and the Los Angeles Times, seems to me to have made the wrong call.

"But to me it is the New York Times, of all papers involved, that has most forgotten the mission. The mission is to get the story, break through the forest to get to a clear space called news, and also be a citizen. It's not to be a certain kind of citizen, and insist everyone else be that kind of citizen, and also now and then break a story."

The Washington Post, however, declared, "There may be times when editors get it wrong, either printing material that proves harmful or withholding information that should have come to light. But these are risks that the Constitution contemplated and that the Framers were persuaded were worth tolerating to ensure a free and vigorous press."

Concerning the decision to publish the banking records story, the Post observed: "We recognize that this was a controversial choice. But that does not excuse the politicians who have responded with press-bashing that scores political points at the expense of constitutional values."

It went on to call criticism from Republicans in Congress, as well as the president and vice president "chilling." It concluded: "Those who complain about disclosures assert that the war on terrorism has changed the calculus of risk. They would prefer a media meekly obeying official demands for secrecy. But in the end, as Justice Stewart understood, the nation stands to benefit far more than it could lose from a press that is 'alert, aware and free.'"