[Rex Smith's] explanation neglects to address some of the more obvious details that have emerged which have led to the more substantive (as opposed to partisan) questions about how this story was handled:
1) Why was the FOIL request directed to the Governor's Communications director, not directly to the State Police?
2) Given the T-U's (and other papers') history of difficulty in obtaining records via FOIL in a timely manner, didn't any alarm bells go off in the newsroom when your first request was filled almost immediately?
3) Given that this initial speedy response included materials the T-U had not actually requested, didn't more alarm bells go off?
4) Given that your second FOIL requests falls well after the first, after questions had been raised about the story and an investigation had been launched, and was amended precisely to cover those records the T-U had already received in error, as opposed to merely reiterating your first FOIL as a "standing" request... Don't the above laspes, coupled with the timeline of events lend at minimum an unfortunate appearance of collusion with the Governor's office and over-eagerness to "get" Bruno, and to provide his people with documents with which to cover their fannies?
5) Why did the T-U keep the reporter who was specifically named in the A.G.'s report on the story for three days, even after this ethical lapse was brought to the paper's attention? Wouldn't any Columbia Journalism School graduate know this was against the rules of Journalism 101?
6) Why has the T-U not seen fit to publish letters critical of its handling of the story, let alone letters critical of Spitzer and his staff -- at least that I can find on your website, though it has surely received many -- while publishing a number of letters taking Bruno to task?
7) Isn't your analogy to the Pentagon Papers rather overdramatizing and self-inflating, not to mention off-point, given that that situation involved the conduct of a war that cost tens of thousands of American and 1-2 million Vietnamese deaths, and constituted a genuine threat to press freedom? (No one died here, and no one has challenged the T-U's right to use confidential sources, albeit in a more ethical manner.)
8) In all, can the paper not admit even a little bit that its actions suggest either an excess of gullibility and zeal to get Bruno, or else eager complicity with the Governor's office?
Spitzer's people forgot the lesson that the coverup is almost always worse than the crime. They had Bruno in a vice, but by overreaching let him slip out, and perhaps permanently tarnished his reputation as an honest broker and straight shooter.
The same could be said of the Times-Union. These heated denials don't put the story behind you
I say all this as a Democrat who donated heavily to Spitzer's campaign, by the way. I think Bruno needs to go; I just don't think underhanded and possibly even deceptive means are the way to do it.
Note that I posted this to the T-U's website (and here) in part because the paper has apparently decided to suppress letters to the editor critical of either Spitzer's people or the paper itself...
