The first development came on January 1 when New York Times ombudsman, Byron Calame, told readers that he had sent a list of questions about the timing of the printing of the NSA article to his paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, and publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., both of whom refused to respond. Two points can be taken from their refusal:

• It showed that, despite previous pledges, the New York Times remains hesitant about transparency. In the new media age where the people have more voice, this puts the Times and newspapers in general in jeopardy in that the public will simply continue to lose faith in the press and stop buying them, something already being reflected in circulation declines.
• The role of the ombudsman, an institution relatively new to newspapers, was placed in jeopardy. If those who appointed Calame to keep the paper in check aren't open with him, what does that say about the influence of or internal respect for the public editor, who is meant to improve the relationship between the paper and its readers?

The second incident occurred during an interview between television broadcaster Andrea Mitchell and the Times journalist who wrote the report, as well as a book on the subject, James Risen. Mitchell asked Risen if he had any information about the NSA spying on journalists, extending the question to name one well-known journalist in particular, Christiane Amanpour. NBC, the broadcast network for which Mitchell works, later deleted the question and response from the interview's transcript which was posted online, but it was too late: media-watcher blogs had already jumped on the quote determining that such a specific reference must imply that there is evidence of such spying.

It seemed obvious that Mitchell had heard something that she wasn't supposed to include in her questioning and NBC soon confirmed speculation saying "this transcript was released prematurely," and "It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting." NBC "removed that section of the transcript so that (it) may further continue (its) inquiry." 

This puts NBC and NYT at approximately equal footing on the explanations of their editorial decisions. But there is one major difference: the NYT investigation is already written, edited and published whereas the NBC investigation is still in the works.

• NYT's editors declare that they cannot talk about the timing of the article's release because it will endanger anonymous sources, an excuse that Calame considers legitimate. But at the same time, he notes that they do not confirm nor deny that they knew of the story before the 2004 elections, something that the public wants cleared up because such an article could have swayed their decision. Since it is known that President Bush tried to persuade Keller and Sulzberger not to print the article during a meeting on December 6th 2005, NYT readers want to know if similar meetings had taken place during the original writing of the story in 2004, something that will not necessarily harm confidential sources.
• For NBC to admit as much as it did is a step in the right direction towards transparency; they could have denied the rumor completely. But at the same time, its mistake in originally publishing the quote combined with its admission puts its investigation immediately at risk. The powers that be are now privy to the investigation and will be prepared to fend off accusations and worse yet, will have time to destroy any related evidence be the story true.
  

Both of these issues show the influence that personal online publishing tools and the Internet in general are having on the media. Once news is out there, it's not going to go away until all questions are answered.

The NYT's attempt at transparency by mentioning that it had had the story for a year backfired because of the outrage in the blogosphere. Previously, the NYT article would have only been able to be responded to in letters to the editor, which may not have even been published.

The NBC transcript never even would have been seen by the public were it not for the Internet.

An article in the New York Times by Katharine Seelye also helps put the transparency dilemma in perspective, suggesting that some journalists are "getting it." Seelye's article cites a number of reporters who admit that their jobs are changing because of the demand for more transparency. One says he now places interviews online with their articles, asking readers to come to their own conclusions about how the article should have been written. Another declares that he doesn't even expect privacy anymore and thinks that any conversation between him and sources is "fair game, as long as you're fair with the people you're dealing with."

All in all, the job of newspaper editors has been permanently transformed because of new media and in fact, has become more difficult. As the "top-down" or "lecture" news model in which the newspaper chooses the news it thinks the public should know gives way to the "conversation", the editor has to be careful enough not to harm ongoing investigations nor give away too much information that anonymous sources are publicized, while still appeasing the public's desire to know how conclusions were reached. At the same time, editors must consider the newsgathering process and the back story just as important as the final article because all are certain to be scrutinized by the public.

Public editors have been established at several papers to respond to this scrutiny. But even the public editor at times needs to be more transparent.

Calame refused to publish the questions he sent to Keller and Sulzberger for the public to browse. If he did so, as many bloggers have pleaded, it would do nothing to harm the paper and in fact could ultimately help Calame connect the paper with its readers by allowing them to add their own questions and comments for NYT editors. Although all of these questions won't be intelligent nor be able to be answered, the fact that the opportunity is there means a radical change in the concept of "letters to the editor" and journalistic transparency in general.

Sources: Pressthink, New York Times (Calame, Seelye (Also Rosen quote)), Online Journalism Review, MSNBC