At the bottom of a column designed to discourage scrutiny by starting out with the New York Times perfume critic, public editor Byron Calame drops a stunner:

Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

I disagree, I still don't think it's a close call, for the very reasons Calame describes.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

These things were apparent from Day One. What kept Calame from weighing these things properly?

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

Vicious criticism? Is the Times such a wilting lily that it can't handle what was moderate criticism when compared to, say, any editorial mentioning President Bush on the Times editorial page during the past five-plus years?

Calame has also revealed himself to be utterly unqualified for the job he currently holds. His "instinctive affinity for the underdog and an enduring faith in a free press" is a severe disability when it comes to being able to take a critical look at the product your employer is producing.

Calame makes his predecessor, Daniel Okrent, look better every day.