New York Times executive editor Bill Keller participated in a long online Q+A with readers about the paper’s publication of the latest Wikileak — 250,000-plus American diplomatic cables that have White House and Homeland Security officials up in arms.
Below is a selection of abbreviated questions and Keller’s answers. (The questions from readers are long-winded and somewhat meaningless, since Keller’s responses cover them, but you can read the full Q+A here.)
What right do you have?
Keller: Quite a few readers are uncomfortable with the idea that a group of editors — unelected editors — can decide to reveal information that the government wants kept secret. Sometimes we’re uncomfortable with that, too. We have as much stake in the war against terror as anyone. Our reporters travel in dangerous places to report on these subjects, and we have had members of the Times family injured, kidnapped and killed in pursuit of the news. So the thought that something we report might increase the dangers faced by the country is daunting and humbling — and not just a matter of theory for us. When we find ourselves in possession of government secrets, we think long and hard about whether to disclose them. Invariably that consideration includes extensive and serious discussions with the government, as it did with the diplomatic cables.
Pause for a second to consider exactly what The Times has done in this case. We have written a series of articles based on what we have learned about various aspects of American foreign policy from this trove of secret cables. We have drawn on our past reporting and the experience of our correspondents to supply context and to cast doubt where information in the cables is questionable. We have also chosen a small selection of the cables — about 100 in all, out of a quarter of a million documents — that we think provide useful source material for the articles we have written. We have edited out any information that could identify confidential sources — including informants, dissidents, academics and human rights activists — or otherwise compromise national security. We did this in consultation with the State Department, and while they strongly disapprove of the publication of classified material at any time, and while we did not agree with all of their requests for omission, we took their views very seriously indeed.
So, two basic questions. Why do we get to decide? And why did we decide to publish these articles and selected cables?
We get to decide because America is cursed with a free press. I’m the first to admit that news organizations, including this one, sometimes get things wrong. We can be overly credulous (as in some of the reporting about Iraq’s purported Weapons of Mass Destruction) or overly cynical about official claims and motives. We may err on the side of keeping secrets (President Kennedy wished, after the fact, that The Times had published what it knew about the planned Bay of Pigs invasion) or on the side of exposing them. We make the best judgments we can. When we get things wrong, we try to correct the record. A free press in a democracy can be messy.
But the alternative is to give the government a veto over what its citizens are allowed to know. Anyone who has worked in countries where the news diet is controlled by the government can sympathize with Thomas Jefferson’s oft-quoted remark that he would rather have newspapers without government than government without newspapers. And Jefferson had plenty of quarrels with the press of his day.
As for why we directed our journalistic attention to these cables, we hope that will be clear from the articles we have written. They contribute to our understanding of how American foreign policy is made, how well it is working, what kind of relationships we have with allies and adversaries. The first day’s articles offered the richest account we have yet seen of America’s attempts to muster a regional and global alliance against Iran; and disclosed that the State Department has increasingly put its diplomats in the uncomfortable position of gathering intelligence on diplomatic counterparts. There is much more to come. We sincerely believe that readers who take an interest in America’s conduct in the world will find this material illuminating. […]
The government is not an infallible judge of what is in the national interest. This country has a long history of information being stamped “secret” in order to hide malfeasance, or cover up embarrassing misjudgments, or paper over policy disputes. We listen to the government’s case for secrecy with great respect, but we do not always agree.
Did the Times partner with WikiLeaks?
Keller: WikiLeaks is not a “media partner” of The Times. We signed no agreement of any kind, with WikiLeaks or anyone else. In fact, in this case — our third round of articles based on documents obtained by WikiLeaks — we did not receive the documents from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange, the founder of the group, decided to withhold the material from us, apparently because he was offended by our reporting on his legal and organizational problems. The London newspaper, The Guardian, gave us a copy of the archive, because they considered it a continuation of our collaboration on earlier WikiLeaks disclosures. (The Guardian initially asked us not to reveal that they were our source, but the paper’s editor said on Sunday night that he was no longer concerned about anonymity.)
We coordinated with the other news organizations on the timing of the release, but not the contents of our articles. We agreed to publish our articles over a number of days rather than in one great heave. The diplomatic cables cover a far wider array of subjects than the earlier disclosures of documents from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. This gradual release allows us — and our readers — to absorb the material and put it in context. It also allows more time for serious (and fruitful, in my view) discussions with the government what should be omitted from public disclosure.
WikiLeaks is a source of raw material, which we have used to write articles about America’s foreign relations. No one from WikiLeaks had any input into our articles, or was allowed to see them before publication.
Like most sources, WikiLeaks has its own motives. Our motive, in fact our reason for being, is to provide information and analysis to help readers decide what they think about the world.
