'Snoopgate', the most recent scandal to hit the Bush White House, was revealed to the public last week in a New York Times article entitled: 'Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts'. The paper is currently under fire for having held off on publishing the story for a year.

The article stated that just months after 9/11 President Bush authorised the National Security Agency to monitor, without the court warrants normally required for domestic spying, telephone conversations and email messages of Americans and foreign nationals living on American soil. This operation was an attempt, according to White House officials, to "track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda."

The article also revealed that the Times had held onto the story for a year at the request of the White House: "The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

Editor and Publisher writes that since the article was published "The New York Times has been accused (from the left) of holding back the story since before the November 2004 election, and (from the right) publishing it only now because of a pending book written by one of its reporters."

James Rainey of The Los Angeles Times explains that one of the principal accusations directed at the New York Times is that "the timing of the story was linked to next month's scheduled publication of 'State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,' the book by Times reporter James Risen." Risen is co-author of the story revealing 'snoopgate'.

Additionally, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has claimed in an article that President Bush called a meeting in the Oval Office with The Times' publisher ad editor in an attempt to urge them to quash the story: "I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting."

The New York Times has responded to its critics with the following statement from Bill Keller:
"The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event ... We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it."

The LA Times article raises further questions regarding the timing of the New York Times' story, reporting that confidential sources at the paper have confirmed that the authors of the story consistently put pressure on editors to publish it.

James Risen has refused to comment on the issues raised.

Despite Bill Keller's explanatory statement, there remain many questions regarding the Times' editors' motivations.

Understandably, such a story needs to be held if it is truly a question of national security. But why print it now? What has changed in the year since the scoop? The security situation? Was some vital information recently confirmed?

The Times' lack of transparency on this issue is another example of why the public is losing trust and faith in the mainstream media. The public wants to know the real reasons why major stories are either held back or released.

Fortunately the Times and other papers have instituted ombudsman to respond to the public's questions. Let's hope that Byron Calame is working for the public and questioning the Times' editors on their reluctance to give a straight answer.

Sources: New York Times, Newsweek, Editor and Publisher and here, Los Angeles Times