I posted this to the Archives List earlier this afternoon.  My guess is 
that many of you who follow archival access issues subscribe to that 
List as well as to Recmgmt-L.  In case there are people here interested 
in the NARA "reclassification" story who don't subscribe to the 
Archives List, here's what I posted:

The Washington Post's national security correspondent, Dana Priest, 
[was] online "live" [earlier today] taking Q&A. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/02/17/DI2006

021701706.html
(registration required)

I submitted a question in advance, sending it in from home this morning 
before coming to work. My question dealt with the NYT 
"reclassification" story and the National Archives. Ms. Priest chose to 
answer the question. Here is the pertinent portion of the Q&A. Please 
note that my focus is on public ignorance of the National Archives, its 
role, position within the government, etc., and that in posting the 
question, I did not take a position publicly on the reclassification 
issue as such:

"Arlington, Va.: The New York Times reported on February 21, 2006 that 
"In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, 
intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands 
of historical documents that were available for years, including some 
already published by the State Department and others photocopied years 
ago by private historians."

I've noticed that in responding to questions in Live Online chats, 
Washington Post reporters sometimes respond to questions by saying that 
certain issues will be "left to historians" to sort out. Historians 
rely in large part on the ability of the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) to do its job. But your newspaper makes little 
effort in its reporting or in its opinion pages to explain to readers 
how the National Archives operates, what constrains NARA from releasing 
information to historians, or what is at stake in issues such as the 
removal and replacement by the President of the U.S. Archivist. A 
records manager I know told me that a representative of your 
newspaper's Outlook section told him last year that archival issues 
were "boring." What's your take on the general lack of interest in 
recent years by the Washington Post in the National Archives? Why did 
it fall to a rival newspaper to break the reclassification story?

Dana Priest: It fell to a rival because we weren't on the ball enough 
to scoop The Times on an excellent story that, really, was out there 
for the taking. That happens sometimes, which is no excuse. And that's 
why it's good to have great competitors to keep us on our toes. I can't 
vouch for your other comments about The Post's approach to the National 
Archives except to say that there probably is not one "approach," that 
as reporters, collectively, we don't pay as much attention to it--or to 
the general issue of creeping secrecy--as we should. Keep pushing."

Maarja

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance