Let me see if I’ve got all my links straight here. Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the CIA, and the results of that request are available here. Over at Politico, Dylan Byers digests the results here, learning that that New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti sent the CIA an advance copy of a column by Maureen Dowd making fun of the Obama White House’s covert op that “outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood”—a snide reference to the new Hollywood blockbuster Zero Dark Thirty, on the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, which may, or may not, include as many lies as the Administration’s press releases on the subject.
Dean Baquet, managing editor at the Times, called Byers to “explain” what happened. According to Byers, this was the explanation:
“I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that’s going on, you’d know it’s much ado about nothing. I can’t go into in detail. But I’m confident after talking to Mark that it’s much ado about nothing.
“The optics aren’t what they look like. I’ve talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know, it’s much ado about nothing.”
Later, Byers received some additional optics from Eileen Murphy, also at the Times:
“Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.”
I guess “mistake” is Timesspeak for “ass-kissing.” As for whether that was “not consistent with New York Times standards,” I suspect that reasonable minds can differ.
Update
Departing NYT public editor Arthur Brisbane devotes his last column to l'affaire Mazzetti here, tossing a few good punches in the direction of the Times in the process. He lets Times executive editor Jill Abramson hit herself in the face by quoting her on the matter as follows: “I can’t provide further detail on why the entire column was sent.* I can assure you that Mark was not doing the C.I.A. a favor. He is an experienced, terrific reporter. Your suggestion is flat wrong.” Jill, who several years ago greviously abused her new position as executive editor to inflict upon Times readers a near-interminable series of articles on, yes, her fucking dog, which she naturally converted into a book—which now, I guess, makes her an author—is the one who is flat-out wrong here, as well as a flat-out liar.
*Both Baquet and Abramson take the position that the Times is in essence an extension of the CIA, and as such has the right to misinform and disinform the public whenever it is inconvenient to tell the truth.
