MR. SAFIRE: Right. And the answer to that is, the founding fathers did. They came up with this Bill of Rights beyond which the constitutional convention would not move unless there were a First Amendment to challenge the government...

MR. BENNETT: Right.

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

MR. SAFIRE: ...just as the American founding fathers challenged the British government. Now it’s not treasonable, it’s not even wrong for the press to say we’re going to find out what we can and we’ll act as a check and balance on the government. Sometimes we’ll make mistakes. Sometimes the government will mistake.

MR. BENNETT: Is it wrong for the government to go after the press when the press has gone too far?

MR. SAFIRE: Sometimes we—sometimes even the Supreme Court admits to making mistakes.

MR. BENNETT: Can—should the press be held responsible if it’s going too far?

MR. HARWOOD: (Unintelligible)...about public opinion.

MR. BENNETT: Should the press be held responsible if it’s gone too far?

MS. MITCHELL: John Harwood:

MR. SAFIRE: Free speech helps everybody.

MR. BENNETT: Judy Miller went to jail for 85 days.

MR. HARWOOD: Now, let me...(unintelligible).

MR. BENNETT: And there was not a big hue and cry about that, was there?

MS. MITCHELL: (Unintelligible).

MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for a moment.

MR. HARWOOD: Let me...(Unintelligible)...just for a moment.

MR. BENNETT: From few people, not from a lot of people.

MR. SAFIRE: There sure was for...(unintelligible)...The New York Times stuck to their...

MS. MITCHELL: Wait, wait, wait, wait, one second here.

MR. HARWOOD: I’m going to agree with Bill Bennett for one moment.

MS. MITCHELL: Please.

MR. BENNETT: One moment.

MR. HARWOOD: I believe that public opinion is much closer to Bennett on this point than some of the other members of the press in the discussion. After Dana wrote her story about secret prisons we asked in our Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, “Do you think the administration has gone too far in handling terror suspects overseas, or is it taking the right approach?” Fifty-five to 30 the American people said they’ve taken the right approach.

MS. MITCHELL: But the press is never popular, and most notably now.

MR. HARWOOD: Exactly so, and the American people are not overly concerned at this moment about the finest points of civil liberties on this. Secondly, I accept that Bill Bennett is not motivated by politics in his views on this. However, when you talk privately to Republicans on the Hill, why did we have a debate for a couple of days on the Hill about this resolution that had no force of law whatsoever about The New York Times? They’ll tell you it was politics. They love having this discussion. They want it to go on as long as possible.

MR. BENNETT: Well, we’re still talking about basic right and wrong here. And is there any question that people—I think I’m the only one here who signed a nondisclosure agreement when I was—when I was director of national drug control policy, maybe some of you have—it’s a pretty serious matter. People who signed those agreements in government have violated the law, they have violated their oath, they have done so by talking to Dana Priest, talking to Risen and talking to Lichtblau.

MS. MITCHELL: Let, let me...

MR. BENNETT: We need to get after those people, and one way to get after those people is to talk to the reporters who—with whom they spoke.

MR. SAFIRE: Oh, you’re saying “get after them.” That means threatening reporters, and threaten them with contempt and put them in jail.

MR. BENNETT: Absolutely, absolutely.

MR. SAFIRE: And that’s wrong.

MS. MITCHELL: Bill, what, what...(unintelligible)...let me ask, Bill...

MR. BENNETT: Why is that wrong, Bill? Why are they above the law?

MR. SAFIRE: Because they’re affected...

MR. HARWOOD: Because it’s a big step toward tyranny, which is what we’re supposed to be withholding.

MR. BENNETT: It isn’t a step toward tyranny. And what about the AIPAC, guys? Is that a step toward tyranny? They’re being prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Isn’t that more a step toward tyranny?

MS. MITCHELL: Bill—Bill Safire, let me ask you a question about The New York Times. There are a lot of people who believe The New York Times, in doing this latest story, is motivated by an anti-Bush animus. Is The New York Times making a decision that is political rather than editorial?

MR. SAFIRE: The New York Times, like The Wall Street Journal, has a wall of separation between its editorial voice and its front page and its news coverage. And that’s always been the case. Now, does it always stay exactly the same? When you drive right down that road, is it always right? No, it changes. But in this case, I am certain, I’m really certain, that the editorial position of The New York Times about the war—which I completely disagree with—did not affect its coverage of the,of the news.

MS. MITCHELL: Let me, let me show you a Wall Street Journal editorial—a very unusual editorial—that was in the paper on Friday. It said that “The problem with The New York Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that The Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.” John, I don’t want to really put you on the spot here, but I am. Your paper’s news columns also ran this story, and here you have this editorial. It really is a really sharp conflict.

MR. HARWOOD: Couple of points on that. First of all, that editorial wasn’t kidding when they said there’s a separation between the news and the editorial pages at The Wall Street Journal.

MS. MITCHELL: That’s for sure.

MR. SAFIRE: Same with us.

CONTINUED

< Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print