New York Times Complicity in Bush Spy Scandal

To me, the most scandalous part of this latest Bush administration scandal--that GWB personally authorized and oversaw illegal spying on American citizens--is not event he spying itself, though that's certainly bad enough (and one more reason why these dangerous and immoral people ought to be impeached). This program is so "out there" that a lot of prominent Republicans, including Arlen Spector and John McCain, are deeply concerned.

But what's really shocking to me is that the New York Times apparently knew at least a year ago, and chose to hold back on the story. Yes, of course, they'd need to thoroughly check their facts, in case it was another attempt to entrap and discredit journalists, a la the Dan Rather situation. But once they were sure, I would think the story of a US President knowingly and deliberately breaking the law would be considered news.

It's unclear to me whether the story was in the Times' hands before the 2004 election--but surely, if they knew, going public with that data might have changed the course of history, given that the results were already not only close but highly questionable.

The Times utterly failed in its responsibility to its readers and the world. Is this the same newspaper that was so active in reporting on the Pentagon Papers and Watergate?

Moral choices in business lead to business success, says Shel Horowitz in his award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First.