John (www):
In regards to this specific incident? No.
10.23.2006 10:31am
Ted (mail) (www):
I'm reminded of the phrase, it is better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.

Given the same opportunity again, they would do the same thing. It's kind of like the story about the turtle and the scorpion about to cross the river. The NYT cannot help themselves, its there nature.
10.23.2006 10:40am
Michael The Rock (mail):
I may be clueless as to how this sort of thing works, but how can you say that the Times, as an organization, has admitted it was wrong when it was only Calame, the ombudsman, who did the apologizing? Let's see an admission from Pinch Sulzberger (sp?) and we'll have a real story.
10.23.2006 10:55am
shep (mail):
I'm with John and Michael on this one. There's nothing suggested about the conscience of "some liberals" (which, at this point, conservatives really have no business calling into question anyway) by anything the NYT does. And even the ombudsman's second thinking doesn't make much sense.

It wasn't a good news article because, as far as can be proved, the international financial survellance program is only illegal in foreign countries and, as far as can be proved, no one’s private data has been misused.

I guess that's why he's ombudsman and not a reporter or editor.
10.23.2006 12:22pm
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I'd like to see the apology for sitting on the domestic spying program for a year when they knew before the '04 election. The editor took to the airways and made excuses to the right and left on that one, and left all of us feeling less than satisfied.

Liberal, my ass.

That program was inarguably secret, and it's legality was/is in serious question, unlike the bank program which was, quite frankly, a yawner of a story. If there was a more definitive apology or retraction for the NSA stories, I missed it.
10.23.2006 2:49pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?