In 2003 Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser to President Bush, met with editors of The New York Times in an effort to dissuade them from printing an article she feared would damage US interests.
Strong-arming the press was one of two tactics favored by the White House for squelching unwanted news; the other was persuading editors that a report was factually wrong. Using third option apparently didn’t occur to them: Do nothing at all.
Ms Rice discussed her media tactics in testimony at the trial of former CIA officer James Sterling, who is accused of leaking classified material to The New York Times. Her testimony suggested staying silent was not an option she considered. But let’s imagine how the meeting with Times editors would have sounded if she had taken this approach:
The New York Times: Ms. Rice, we are preparing to publish a report saying the CIA maintains secret drone bases in Saudi Arabia. Do you have a comment?
Condoleezza Rice: No, I am not going to comment on those allegations.
NYT: With respect, these are more than allegations. Senior administration officials we have spoken to acknowledge their existence.
CR: ‘Senior officials?’ Really? I would hope you’d name your sources for such an important article. In fact, doesn’t the Times have a policy to that effect?
NYT: Well, the sources requested anonymity because of the significance of the news and fear that they might face harm.
CR: Yes, I’m sure they did. I’m sure people are happy to say a lot of things when you grant them anonymity. You’re just like the FBI’s witness-protection program.
NYT: Ms. Rice, our report is planning to say these bases have operated for several years and have been used to strike at targets across the region. Can you confirm this?
CR: No, I will not confirm it. If you are confident in the accuracy of your information and the trustworthiness of your sources, then publish. Unless you’re going to put me on the Times masthead, I’m not going to exercise editorial judgment for you.
NYT: Well, you are putting us in a difficult position. I assume that since you are not objecting to the facts we’ve described they must be correct.
CR: Don’t assume any such thing. I am saying nothing at all about your so-called news. If it meets your standards, I expect you’ll print it. That is your motto, yes? “All the news that’s fit to print.” I believe in a free press, and that means the press is free to take responsibility for what appears in its pages.
NYT: I do not understand why you can’t deny it, then. Surely if it’s not true you would have no hesitation saying so.
CR: I am taking no position on your report at all. I might choose to in the future; that is my prerogative. I feel no obligation whatsoever to respond to the press on this or any other issue. That is not how we conduct national security policy.
NYT: But…we are The New York Times, the paper of record….read by millions.
CR: Meaning what, exactly? That you have a monopoly on the truth? Please. Once upon a time, a lot of people believed what they read in the Times without hesitation. But you’ve lost that authority, and your audience isn’t what it once was, either. If it wasn’t for the crossword puzzle, I’m not sure I’d keep a subscription.
NYT: We would be distressed if the administration denied the report after we published.
CR: I don’t think you’d be that distressed, really. You’d be more distressed, I should think, if you found you’d got your facts wrong.
NYT: Then perhaps there is some guidance you can offer us, off-the-record? After all, this report touches on some very sensitive national security issues and one of America’s staunchest allies.
CR: Not a chance. But nice try. You started to sound like a member of my staff for a moment.
NYT: I think this meeting is over.
CR: On that we can agree.
Government officials often feel a need to intervene in the reporting process, especially on sensitive topics. That can be helpful in some cases, but it also can lead to a situation in which officials have as much invested in the story as the editors. That’s dangerous ground.
Often it is best to keep the risk burden squarely on the editors. That won’t kill a damaging story, but it might force the editors to take a hard look at their sourcing and drop poorly substantiated or speculative statements.
We’ll never know what might have happened if Ms. Rice had taken this approach. Still, it’s fun to imagine the conversation.