Let's be clear - in nice words, Calame has called the stories into question. The lack of a good explanation for why anonymity was required places the story in the same bag as the pre-Iraq war intelligence stories, casting doubt on them. For a paper's Public Editor to do so is significant.

One of the more interesting points about this piece is that it was spurred by reader complaints about actual news coverage as opposed to alleged bias. Contrast that with Howell's piece on William Arkin's OPINION blog reference to mercenaries in Iraq. Spurred by right wing blog complaints about being OFFENDED by Arkin's OPINION piece, Howell wasted an article on the subject. This is simplu a disagrace. Factual errors in opinion pieces? fine. But offense? Sorry, NOT the Public Editor's job AT ALL. But Ms. Howell is simply an incompetent. She does not know what she is doing.

Calame shows what the job is. For example, he criticizes the editing of the piece for failing to provide a balanced view by offering readers a sense of whether there is a consensus on the allegations Michael Gordon reported in his stories on Iran:

Failing to reach out for dissenting views was a pre-war shortcoming, The Times has previously acknowledged. So even after Mr. Gordon had “nailed” key parts of the Feb. 10 article, according to Mr. Keller, editors specifically asked him “to talk to places in government that had been skeptical of W.M.D.,” such as the State Department. Still, editors didn’t make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported. For example, the article on Mr. Bush’s news conference pointed out that the position of the president — and the similar position taken earlier in the week by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — differed from the suggestion at the Sunday Baghdad briefing that the weapons effort involved top levels of the Iranian government. That story also should have noted, however, that the president’s view on this point differed from the intelligence assessment given readers of the Feb. 10 article.

What is Calame saying here? That the Times got it wrong and should have said so when reporting on Bush's press conference.

I would go one further - it should give pause to the assurances Mr. Gordon gave his editors. Clearly he is not good at separating wheat from chaff. His pronouncements in support of the surge demonstrate that, in many ways, Gordon has become to close to the story. Gordon has great sources and clearly can not be taken off the story. Indeed, he is clearly a fine reporter. But he appears to be the type of reporter who must be held on a short leash. The Times editors have not done that.

I think that is Calame's subtle message here. The real critique is of the Times editors, less so of Gordon.