How Not to Cover the NSA Issue

In the wake of Porter Goss' sudden (and yet to be adequately explained) resignation as head of the CIA, the White House is already floating the name of his likely successor, General Michael Hayden. If Hayden is indeed tapped for the job, his confirmation hearing will almost surely trigger a renewed discussion of the President's illegal domestic wiretapping program, given Hayden's role in overseeing that program and defending it publicly.

In an article covering the proposed Hayden nomination, Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post had this to say about the NSA angle:

The White House came to see the [NSA] program as a
political boon because polls showed many voters are
not concerned about the civil liberties issues and believe
it would only target violent extremists. "When you push
even the harshest critic, even they say, 'Yeah, we should
be listening to al-Qaeda,' " a senior administration official
said yesterday. "So from that perspective, that's a winning
[issue] and we're on the side of the public."

This is complete rubbish and a terrible bit of journalism. The first line uncritically recites White House spin, without attribution and without citing any actual evidence. The notion that the White House views the NSA scandal as a "political boon" is total nonsense, as evidenced by the administration's all-out effort to stifle any investigation or inquiry into the program from the beginning. And the suggestion that polls have shown this issue to be a clear political winner for the White House is just flat-out not true.

But it's the anonymous quote that just about made my head explode. Baker and Linzer--as well as anyone with even a cursory understanding of this issue--know full well that the NSA controversy has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we should be "listening to al-Qaeda." There is universal agreement that we should. The question is whether the administration should be able to do so without seeking the judicial approval required by law.

So why on earth was a "senior administration official" granted anonymity to make such a transparently deceitful statement? And why was it printed without even an attempt to "balance" it out with the truth?

Who knows. Sadly this kind of journalistic lapse is all too common. It could just be carelessness on the part of Baker and Linzer (and their editors). But it may also reflect a "soft gloves" approach to the new press secretary, Tony Snow. The anonymous administration official quoted in the piece sounds an awful lot like Snow. Here's what Snow wrote about the NSA program in a recent column.

[James Risen and Eric Lichtblau] saved the Bush
presidency recently by breaking news that the National
Security Agency has been conducting surveillance of
al-Qaida operatives abroad and their minions in the
United States. . . .

Yet as opponents grimaced and gathered, curious and
unexpected things happened. The president's poll ratings
rose, as did public support for the supposedly
controversial operation. . . .

Snow ended his column by observing that:

If we try to fight the war on terror with eyes shut and
ears packed with wax, innocent people will die.

I'll bet that the "senior administration official" quoted in the Post piece is Snow. And, sadly, I suspect that he was granted anonymity to spout this garbage as an act of journalistic courtesy.

If so, it's time for the honeymoon to end. Printing such nakedly deceptive spin, at least without labeling it as such, is inexcusable. This is not how anonymous sourcing is supposed to be used. If administration officials want to mislead the American people, at least make them do so on the record.