Posted 2:56 PM by steve

Au contraire, mon ami...

Patterico thinks NYT ombudsman Byron Calame should resign... for having rushed to defend the NYT's revealing the details of the SWIFT terrorist tracking program "because the paper had been harshly criticized by the Bush Administration". As Patterico puts it, "a public editor who cannot objectively evaluate his paper’s behavior in the face of criticism — from any source — should not be the public editor".

Right... and that will happen when pigs fly. Calame doesn't work for the public, he works for the same people who sign the paychecks of the reporters and editors who published the story.

Calame's job - the reason he is getting a paycheck - is to do what he did: run interference for the editorial staff. He gets paid to deflect criticism away from the editors. It is his job to put the supposedly independent seal of approval on the editorial content of the paper. Sure, every now and then, he is allowed - encouraged even - to come out and criticize some story... but never the important ones.

As for this particular story, Calame did what he was supposed to do. His blessing gave cover to Keller's decision to run the story. His endorsement kept the focus on what the Bush Administration was doing and away from the NYT's decision to publish. The editors hit the trifecta: they destroyed the value of an important anti-terror program, they made the Bush Administration look like it was up to something illegal and they helped keep motivated all the anti-Bush crazies out there.

And, as far as his probably insincere change of heart, what better way to maintain his credibility for the next time the NYT pulls a similar stunt? Note: the paranoid among us might, just might, think that Calame was clearing the decks for a not-too-far-in-the-future NYT story revealing yet more classified material.

So, as far as I can tell, he's doing a great job... so long as you gauge his job performance by the standards his bosses have set for him... and not by whether the Patterico's of the world are happy.

See, Patterico, unlike the public defenders, who actually do take the side of the people they're 'paid' to represent, public editors owe their loyalty to their editors. Unlike a public defender who gets 'too many' defendants off the hook and can look forward to a great future in the private sector.... a public editor who takes on his editors too many times ought to practice saying "would you like that super-sized", for he can forget about getting another job in journalism...

|