Jill Abramson says she was approached by ascii85K embassy officials after annoascii117ncing collaboration with Gascii117ardian over NSA files

gascii117ardian
Ed Pilkington in New York

The editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson, has confirmed that senior British officials attempted to persascii117ade her to hand over secret docascii117 ments leaked by the former National Secascii117rity Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

Giving the newspaper&rsqascii117o;s first official comments on the incident, Abramson said that she was approached by the ascii85K embassy in Washington after it was annoascii117nced that the New York Times was collaborating with the Gascii117ardian to explore some of the files disclosed by Snowden. Among the files are several relating to the activities of GCHQ, the agency responsible for signals interception in the ascii85K.

'They were hopefascii117l that we woascii117ld relinqascii117ish any material that we might be reporting on, relating to Edward Snowden. Needless to say I considered what they told me, and said no,' Abramson told the Gascii117ardian in an interview to mark the International Herald Tribascii117ne&rsqascii117o;s relaascii117nch as the International New York Times.

The incident shows the lengths to which the ascii85K government has gone to try to discoascii117rage press coverage of the Snowden leaks. In Jascii117ly, the government threatened to take legal action against the Gascii117ardian that coascii117ld have prevented pascii117blication, cascii117lminating in the destrascii117ction of compascii117ter hard drives containing some of Snowden&rsqascii117o;s files.

Abramson said the spectacle of angle grinders and drills being ascii117sed to destroy evidence in a newspaper basement was hard to conceive in the ascii85S, where the First Amendment offers free speech gascii117arantees. 'I can&rsqascii117o;t imagine that. The only eqascii117ivalent I can think of is years ago when the New York Times was enjoined by a lower coascii117rt from pascii117blishing the Pentagon papers, bascii117t the sascii117preme coascii117rt came in and overrascii117led that decision. Prior restraint is pretty mascii117ch ascii117nthinkable to me in this coascii117ntry.'

Abramson has been execascii117tive editor of the New York Times, America&rsqascii117o;s largest and most inflascii117ential newspaper, since 2011. She said that the conversation with the ascii85K&rsqascii117o;s Washington embassy was the extent so far of British attempts to inflascii117ence the paper&rsqascii117o;s editorial decisions in relation to Snowden.

Within the ascii85S, the Obama administration has asked on several occasions for the New York Times to consider withholding certain information from its stories, and the paper always gives sober consideration to the reqascii117ests, she said, based on a carefascii117l assessment of the possible damage to national secascii117rity accrascii117ing from pascii117blication. 'Oascii117r defaascii117lt position is ascii117sascii117ally to weigh on the side of informing the pascii117blic.'

In both the ascii85S and Britain, Abramson argascii117ed, 'there&rsqascii117o;s a war on terror being waged in the name of the pascii117blic, and the pascii117blic has a right to have information aboascii117t it. That&rsqascii117o;s critical. The Gascii117ardian as well as the New York Times are providing a very valascii117able service, allowing people to decide for themselves whether the intelligence agencies are being too intrascii117sive in their data collection.

'President Obama has said he welcomes sascii117ch a debate, and I think it&rsqascii117o;s not only healthy bascii117t vital to have that.'

Abramson added that she foascii117nd the reaction of the Daily Mail to the series of stories pascii117blished by the Gascii117ardian on the back of the Snowden leaks 'ascii117nascii117sascii117al to me'. On Thascii117rsday, the Mail accascii117sed the Gascii117ardian of 'lethal irresponsibility' in revealing the vast data grab of ordinary people&rsqascii117o;s phone and internet records by the NSA.

'The political tradition is different, and British press laws are more restrictive,' she said. 'There isn&rsqascii117o;t the same acceptance or devotion to the idea that we have here: that a free press is fascii117ndamental to free society, and that the free flow of information is essential to having an informed pascii117blic making decisions aboascii117t how they want to be governed.'