The NY Times and Wash Post Won't Touch This Story. Why?

McClatchy Newspapers, an American organisation, has conducted the most in-depth and serious investigation yet into torture of illegally detained prisoners at Guantanamo. Considered a landmark study by newspaper publishers and editors, the report has not made even a ripple in the national media. (Of course, McClatchy itself is a mainstream news media company. Why, then, are media outlets not giving this groundbreaking story any play?)

The New York Times and Washington Post (to say nothing of the two presidential candidates) have not yet even acknowledged the report or its findings, which are nothing if not seminal.

A small newspaper in Boston, The Phoenix, examines the report, its implications for American security and the "War on Terror", and the question of why it has disappeared into the Memory Hole.

Is anybody paying attention to McClatchy's powerful Guantánamo exposé?


FULL STORY (since link rot is inevitable):

An old-media triumph sheds new light on Bush’s terror policy By ADAM REILLY June 25, 2008

Even before its 2006 acquisition of Knight Ridder, California-based McClatchy had a reputation for putting out some of America’s best mid-level dailies. The Knight Ridder purchase, when it occurred, didn’t just add powerhouses like the Miami Herald and Charlotte Observer to McClatchy’s stable; it also gave McClatchy access to Knight Ridder’s Washington, DC, bureau, which had distinguished itself with commendably skeptical coverage prior to the Iraq War.

Now with this past week’s publication of a series on the Kafka-esque detention of thousands of foreign nationals following 9/11, the hybrid McClatchy–Knight Ridder DC operation is enjoying its biggest achievement to date. The subject matter of “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” wasn’t new, exactly — the abuse of prisoners, the questionable criteria used to put them behind bars, and the dubious legal framework crafted to justify their ongoing legal limbo have all been covered elsewhere. But the depth of McClatchy’s treatment was unprecedented, and its conclusions were startling. For one thing, most prisoners at Guantánamo had “no intelligence value in the war on terror.” For another, by radicalizing formerly apolitical detainees, Guantánamo may actually have made Americans less safe, not more.

In the course of their research, reporters Tom Lasseter and Matthew Schofield talked to 66 former detainees who’d been held at Guantánamo and elsewhere; the fruits of their eight-plus-month investigation were published, by design, on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling that Guantánamo’s inmates can challenge their detentions in civilian court. (The series also appeared the same week that McClatchy announced its latest round of cutbacks; more on that in a bit.) The vast scope of Lasseter and Schofield’s reporting makes it more likely that their findings will hold up in the future. And, as an added bonus, it gives the public a vast trove of anecdotal evidence, which has been skillfully packaged online at mcclatchydc.com/detainees. There’s a photo gallery, video interviews with 10 former prisoners, and miniature profiles of every single detainee interviewed for the series. Sometimes the old saw about “journalism being the first draft of history” makes you feel sorry for the historians. Not here.

But is “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” getting the attention that it should? That’s hard to say. As Editor & Publisher noted this past week, pickup and play inside the McClatchy chain itself has been outstanding. (McClatchy’s papers aren’t obligated to use material generated by the chain’s Washington bureau.) Several non-McClatchy papers, including the Oregonian and the Denver Post, have run part or all of the series, too. And according to Roy Gutman, McClatchy’s foreign editor, it’s been discussed on CNN (by Christiane Amanpour) and NPR (on Talk of the Nation, All Things Considered, and The Diane Rehm Show).

Still, the series’ reach has its limits. As of this writing, for example — and despite both the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and a new Physicians for Human Rights report that accuses the Bush administration of torture and war crimes — the New York Times hasn’t mentioned “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law,” even on its op-ed page. The Washington Post has, but only online. The various network news programs, including the Sunday-morning political talk shows, seem uninterested. And despite the fact that US detention policy has emerged as a major point of contention between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, neither the candidates themselves nor their campaigns have publicly discussed McClatchy’s findings.

No surprise, then, that McClatchy’s top editorial brass — even as they voice their short-term satisfaction — seem to be hoping for better things to come. When I asked David Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, about the reaction the series has elicited, his immediate response was positive: “I feel really good about it.” But then he added this: “We always thought that it would have kind of a long tail, or we hoped so. Our assumption was that we were putting something out there that has a long life.”

For his part, Gutman was slightly less sanguine. “We haven’t had any impact yet, to be quite honest,” he said. “The real question is, how does this get translated into action? You have to think of the political side, first and foremost. . . . Sometimes, with stories you’d think would have people out marching in the streets, nothing happens. And sometimes nothing happens until six months later.”

It’s still possible that “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” will end up driving the debate over detainee policy during the presidential stretch drive. But maybe, for a few different reasons — including the reluctance of most news organizations to chase competitors’ scoops, and a broader reluctance to seriously grapple with the worst that’s done in the name of “homeland security” — neither the series nor the subject will ultimately get the attention they deserve.

Another question worth pondering: could “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” end up being, if not McClatchy’s last hurrah, then something close to it? Since absorbing Knight Ridder, McClatchy has earned praise from Michael Massing (writing in the New York Review of Books) for its unique reporting from inside Iraq. It’s also done a fine job covering the high-stakes military minuet between the United States and Iran. But McClatchy, like most news organizations, is cutting back of late. On Monday, June 16, McClatchy announced plans for 1400 new job cuts, which would shrink its nationwide operation by 10 percent. And the Washington bureau won’t be unscathed. Westphal, McClatchy’s Washington editor, will be leaving that post to move to California with his wife, Geneva Overholser, who was recently named director of the journalism school at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication. He won’t be replaced. Neither will David Whitney, an outgoing correspondent who covers Washington for the Sacramento Bee and San Luis Obispo Tribune. Matt Stearns, an outgoing general-assignment national correspondent, might or might not be. After these and other departures, McClatchy’s DC shop, like the company as a whole, will be about 10 percent smaller than it was a year ago.

But Walcott, who’ll run the Washington operation after Westphal’s departure, insists that these cutbacks won’t be crippling. “We will continue to do, and can continue to do, this kind of reporting — the kind of reporting that we did on the US attorneys story, and the Iraq war, and on US relations with Iran,” he told the Phoenix. “Some of these cuts may make it harder, and it may take a little longer. We may have to be selective about how much we do. But we’re going to continue to do this kind of work.”

This kind of work, Walcott added, can only be done by a certain, privileged segment of the news media. “Not every news organization, in print or online, has the resources to do this kind of thing,” he said. “I think sometimes people are a little quick to pull the trigger on the hated ‘mainstream media.’ We are a mainstream media company, and that’s one of the reasons we can do things like this.

“That’s not to say we’re perfect, or that we don’t deserve a lot of criticism, we in the mainstream media,” he said. “But once in a while, we’re capable of doing something worthwhile, something only a large organization can do.”

This willingness to describe “Guantánamo: Beyond the Law” as a generalized mainstream-media victory — as opposed to just a triumph for McClatchy — is commendable. Maybe McClatchy’s competitors can return the favor by helping the series get the readership it deserves.