What would Americans think if they knew that their best newspaper, The New York Times, had allowed one of its national-security reporters to negotiate a book deal that needed the approval of the CIA?
What would they say if they knew the CIA was editing the book while the country is days or weeks away from a war with Iraq and is counting on the Times to monitor the intelligence agency?
They would be properly horrified.
One of the golden rules of journalism is that you can't let your source control your content. Another is that you must avoid making financial deals with the people you cover. The reasons are obvious. Reporters turn themselves into pretzels to prove their reporting isn't compromised. And their credibility becomes a casualty of their relationships.
I can understand the concerns, but I have to say: What's the big deal here? For one thing, the CIA is editing sections of the book written by a former agent, NOT the parts written by the reporter. (It seems prudent to me.) Secondly, I have to wonder how much freedom does ANY reporter have when it comes to covering a supersecret intelligence agency? And nowhere in the article is there any indication that the reporter has made a financial deal with the CIA.
In my opinion, putting the story of the CIA's battles against the KGB in the 1980s into the historical record supercedes any "conflict of interest." After all, isn't journalism about writing the first draft of history?
