The White House is not exactly denying it, either.

The Observer checked in with the White House this morning, and again this afternoon, at which point point we were directed to the Department of Health and Human Services. From there, our call was forwarded across the District line to the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda. There, spokesman Calvin Jackson admitted, "This is the first I've heard of this," before promising to ask around. So far, no reply.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control has sprung into action on Twitter. "Do NOT take Potassium Iodide (KI) in US b/c of nuclear pwr plants in Japan, #japan http://go.usa.gov/4hX," the agency warned about an hour ago.

And so, Brobos, you may want to think twice before mashing up some pills in young Henry or Eleanor's organic porridge tomorrow morning.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @mc_nyo

The Washington Post's Perry Bacon, Jr. didn't want to miss out on all the tropical fun frolicking under palm trees and such, so he dispatched a hard-hitting report from the island paradise. When the work's done, it seems, it's all luaus and poi for the staffers. CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry even gets to wear some festive shirts!

Henry, who also covered the Bush White House, is here for the third straight year and has created something of a brand covering Obama's vacations. He trades his traditional news correspondent garb of a suit and tie for a seemingly endless variety of multi-colored Hawaiian shirts and flip-flops.

But life's not a beach for everyone. For some aides the trip requires some serious multitasking.

Aside from those routine situations, both reporters and aides try to stay ready in case of major news. Nick Shapiro, a White House assistant press secretary for homeland security issues, bought a waterproof cover for his BlackBerry so that he can go surfing but keep his device with him at all times.

I guess it's a prerequisite that Barack's staffers be able to hang ten and BBM at the same time. Surf's up!

Click for Scandal Report: With Natalie and Mila in Town, New York Goes Swan-Crazy

nfreeman [at] observer.com | @nfreeman1234

Trump denied having any knowledge of the poll, and at first played coy on whether or not it was an indicator of any future political aspirations. Now, today on Fox and Friends, Trump said he was "seriously" considering throwing his hat in the ring in 2012, the New York Post reports.

"For the first time in my life, I'm actually thinking about it [running for president]," Trump told Fox News Channel. He added, "I see what's going on with this country and it's never been worse. What's happening is a disgrace."

When asked what party he would affiliate himself with, Trump said the Republican party.

The poll, which was first reported on by Time magazine on Monday, mentioned a variety of potential candidates and pairings, but 30 of the questions were about Trump. 

The potential Republican candidate today continued to deny that he had any part in the New Hampshire poll, but did mention that "I hear the results are amazing."

Goolsbee declined to predict a specific unemployment rate for the end of 2010, saying only that he didn't expect a decline in joblessness to happen anytime soon, and "The labor market is significantly weakened and has been for some time. We have to do everything we can to try to create jobs."

Goolsbee's predecessor, Christina Romer, had predicted that thanks to the Obama administration's stimulus package, the unemployment rate would remain below 8 percent in 2010, and without stimulus the jobless rate would hit 9 percent. Clearly, those estimates proved overly rosy. Romer has since returned to her old job, teaching economics at the University of California, Berkeley.

Most everyone agrees that retirement was the necessary move. But commentators are divided on the status of her legacy. While some say her 60-odd years of service should outweigh her recent remarks on Israel - "trailblazer" is a favorite bit of praise - others say they knew all along she was a closet anti-Semite.

The consensus seems to be that Thomas is a relic of a slower, YouTube-less age of journalism, and hadn't developed the caution most would feel if asked a pointed question about Israel by a rabbi with a video camera.

Howard Kurtz:
"While the 89-year-old Thomas is renowned as a trailblazer who aggressively questioned 10 presidents -- including President Obama, whom she pressed last month on Afghanistan -- her hostility toward Israel has been no secret within the Beltway. Though she gave up her correspondent's job a decade ago, she retained her front-row briefing-room seat, even as colleagues sometimes rolled their eyes at her obvious biases."

Cal Thomas:
"A generous person might forgive a one-off 'slip of the tongue,' but Helen Thomas has a long history of questioning and opposing anything Israel does in its own defense. While not all criticism of Israel should be translated as anti-Semitism, Thomas' rhetoric over the years seems to betray a deep-seated hatred of Jews." He goes on to criticize Thomas' comparing Israelis to Nazis by deploying a similarly bizarre comparison: "That is like blaming African Americans for police brutality during the civil rights movement."

The Board of the White House Correspondents Association:
"Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trailblazer on the White House beat."

Dana Milbank:
"The White House press corps will be diminished without Helen front and center, and not only because she was in that job before the current president was born. She brought a ferocity to her questioning that has eluded too many in subsequent generations. At a time when others were getting cozy with sources, her crabby, unrelenting hostility was refreshing.... Had she retired even a week ago, those would have been the memories. Colleagues would have remembered Obama visiting her with cupcakes in the briefing room and singing 'Happy Birthday' to her last August."

Jon Stewart:
"Yes, why did the Jews ever leave Germany and Poland? If anyone should know why the Jews left it, it's Mother Time. Seriously! Helen! What the f*ck! You were like twenty when it happened!" The old woman lines are comic gold: "You know, that joke killed when she told it to Moses."

Jo-Ann Armao:
"As someone who has benefited from the trails blazed by Helen Thomas, I am told I should cut her some slack regarding her ignorant remarks about Jews." But that's evidently impossible, especially in light of those cupcakes: "Many thought it cute that the president honored her with cupcakes. And they cheered her brazen questions at White House press conferences. I, for one, cringed at what I considered her increasingly inappropriate behavior... It's a sad end to her life's work, but even sadder is how the rest of the media were willing to go along for the ride."

The Post's farewell was decidedly less sentimental.

The number of charter flights for reporters to follow the president on trips has sharply declined in recent months, according to The New York Times. Last year the press spent a total of $18 million on such travel arrangements.

Only a dozen reporters are allowed to accompany the president on Air Force One; everyone else--those correspondents "outside the bubble"--traditionally charter a flight together. With news budgets tight, however, reporters are having to fly commercial days in advance, take buses or miss trips altogether.

The decision of whether or not to charter a plane comes down to a vote between the five major networks — ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC — and Edwin Chen, president of the White House Correspondents' Association, who gets two votes on behalf of all the other reporters.

Things are tighter than ever at the news networks. ABC News recently cut 300 jobs, and CBS and CNN are considering a partnership that would allow them to share news-gathering resources.

“The sole reason is money,” Mr. Chen told The Times.

It was among this treasure trove of vintage szhoosh that I came upon several massive crates containing large nasty shiny plastic balls. They did not exactly scream “Martha Stewart.” Au contraire!

Approximately 6 inches in diameter, they resembled something that might dangle from the ceiling of a ’70s gay bar or a doomed shopping mall. Setting aside the question of why anyone ever saw fit to introduce such tacky items into the White House, I grabbed them, all 800 of them. I was on a mission. A secret mission. Permit to explain:

Last spring, Desiree Rogers, the glamazon White House social secretary, invited me—are you sitting down?—to help decorate the White House for the holidays!!! I felt honored and stunned but not, if I am to be honest, totally surprised. This may sound arrogant, but if not me, then whom? With more than 35 years of Holiday decorating at Barneys and elsewhere, I am, après tout, one of the most experienced elves in the land. Why, conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart (more on him in a moment) was still in diapers when I began practicing my craft.

My accumulated holiday savoir-faire did not stop me from being utterly terrified by this fabulous project. The responsibility! The gravitas! The White House! What would happen if I screwed it all up? What would happen if it all turned out looking all horrid and naff? What would happen if some self-appointed Web luminary blogged about some infinitesimally small aspect of my holiday décor, thereby setting off of a gruesome and hostile Internet fatwa? But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

MARCH 2009: MEETING DESIREE.

Why do I feel as if I am standing in a hole? Because the gorgeous and statuesque Desiree Rogers is 5 feet 10 inches tall, that’s why.

During lunch at Fred’s, La Rogers pulls a legal pad out of her Vuitton shoulder bag. She reads me notes taken at a meeting with Mrs. Obama the previous day: Reflect. Rejoice. Renew. This mantra will serve as my guiding principle for the first Obama Holiday.

I suggest that we incorporate some children’s art. Desiree agrees and goes on to tell me about the above-mentioned warehouse. A light bulb goes on. Let’s combine the kids’ art with a recycling moment! Maybe there will be some big gnarly ornaments from some past administration that can be customized, painted and repurposed. Reflect. Rejoice. Renew. Recycle.

SEPTEMBER 2009: MEETING MRS. OBAMA

During the summer, I made repeated trips to our nation’s capital to meet with Desiree and her incredible team of collaborators and volunteers, plus the legendary W.H. flower-shop team. At the helm: Sally Armbruster, Desiree’s assistant, and, most importantly, a top-notch event/set designer named Kimberly Merlin. La Merlin shouldered the bulk of the planning/creative-resourcing responsibility. I provided the overarching vision while Kimberly creatively whomped a solid design proposal together with unerring artistic elan, i.e., she did most of the work. Bravo, Kimmy!

By September, Desiree, Kimberly, Sally and I were ready to unfurl our reflect/rejoice/renew/recycle game plan to Mrs. Obama.

Why do I feel as if I am standing in a hole? Because Mrs. Obama is 5 feet 11 inches tall, that’s why.

The first lady—she dresses with the chic understatement of a Mona Lisa Smile Wellesley gal, circa 1950—looks outstanding in a navy blue and apple green summer dirndl-skirted dress with a waist-accentuating argyle cardigan. She bends down and gives me a hug and thanks me for my hard work. I’m kvelling.

We show her our boards and swatches and talk her through the vast and complex proposal of wreaths and trees and garlands, East Wing, West Wing, the Nativity, Residence, Oval Office, etc., etc. She interjects great ideas and keeps us on track. In a lifetime filled with presentation meetings, this was, for me, the easiest and the most pleasurable. Our first lady has great taste. She is a quick study. She is delightful and cultivated and inhabits her current role with grace and intelligence.

Her long-standing interest in style makes the process easy: She likes the “softer, more Romeo Gigli colors.” She agrees with my suggestion that we should use “a Lanvin-ish antique-looking glitter” instead of anything too sparkly. While Mrs. Obama loves the idea of “the Wish Tree,” an interactive piece created by a Hoboken-based company named Cardboard Design, her most enthusiastic response is reserved for the 800 recycled silver balls that are proposed for the monumental Blue Room Tree. Together we decide that decoupage, rather than painting, is the way to go. Mrs. Obama suggests that we include the efforts of not just kids, but people of all ages at community centers around the U.S. The theme? Great American Monuments.

Before you can say “Bo, the Portuguese water dog,” the balls are shipped off by Sally and her interns to diverse organizations in every state. We include a jug of Mod Podge and a directive written by yours truly on the pitfalls and pleasures of decoupage.

DECEMBER 2009: TIME TO MAKE THE DOUGHNUTS

The installation of the holiday décor follows close upon the Manolo heels of the Salahi party-crasher debacle. As a result, security is tight. All the incoming boxes of pepper-berries, hydrangeas and pine garlands are sniffed and prodded. Extra precautions are taken with the 800 formerly-hideous-and-now-hopefully-fabulous silver balls. Coming as they have from such a broad spectrum of locations, they represent a complex security challenge. I am itching to take a look at the results. This will be my first encounter with the hundreds of returning orbs. Finally, they are released and delivered to the Blue Room. I dive into the boxes.

The citizens of the United States of America have done a bang-up job. The balls are the perfect mixture of wholesome holiday cheer, patriotism, creative expression and fun. While there is no shortage of Mount Rushmores, Niagara Falls and Grand Canyons, most of the creators took a more small-town route, commemorating local landmarks and institutions. Inhabitants of an Indian reservation fringed and beaded theirs with extraordinary skill. One clever person turned his/hers into a Georgia peach. So far, so good.

We are on a very tight deadline. The relentless schedule of holiday events starts the next day. While Kimberly and her team fling grapevines, magnolia wreaths and lotus pods hither and thither, I set about the task of festooning the massive, ceiling-scraping Blue Room Tree. After eight hours of ball-tying, scaffolding-wrangling and ribbon-pinking, we are done. On Wednesday, Dec. 2, we add the magnificent hand-beaded Project Alabama tree skirt. Et voilà! I am very proud of our “Monuments” tree. It looks gorgeous.

Hearing a racket outside, I turn and manage to catch the president jumping aboard the US 1 helicopter to go make his now famous Camp David Afghanistan speech. On my way back to the W Hotel across the street, I encounter Bo and give him a pat on the head. I reflect on the majesty of the U.S. A person can emigrate to this country with a dollar and a dream and, if he shleps hard enough, end up szhooshing the White House.

During the first three weeks of December, the White House schedule of fetes and receptions proceeds without incident. The Wish Tree is groaning with wishes. Oprah and HGTV praise and immortalize our efforts. Everyone is happy. Even Pat Nixon’s old Faberge orbs, polished up and reused in one of many bipartisan gestures, are happy.

DEC. 23: THE BLOGSPLOSION

Some grody little snapshots find their way to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government Web site HQ. The iPhotos contain carefully chosen and gruesomely misleading micro-close-ups of three of the 800 Blue Room balls: Barely visible is a postage-stamp-size Andy Warhol Chairman Mao from, I assume, a Pittsburgh Warhol Museum–themed ball; a micro-mug-shot of a good-hearted vaudevillian tranny entertainer named Hedda Lettuce; and a pecan-size Obama head decoupaged by a fan onto Mount Rushmore. These three details are seized upon by Mr. Breitbart and attributed directly to yours truly: “Transvestites, Mao and Obama ornaments decorate White House tree.”

The BG posting implies that I have manipulated the content of the décor to incorporate my own malevolent agenda, expressing communist sympathies and launching an attack on family values by including a mug shot of Hedda Lettuce.

There is no way to even begin to address the idiocy and inaccuracy of these notions. There is no such thing as redress on the curse that we call the Internet. Big Government has dropped me in the shazzit and the hating begins. Within hours, Hedda and mini-Mao have gone viral and global with Fox News and tens of thousands of blogs and hits.

Homicidal hatred rages. Death threats involving baseball bats and my head, etc. You get the picture. Merry Christmas, Mr. Doonan, and welcome to Tinselgate.

As somebody who was raised by an arch-conservative working-class mom and a lefty dad, I am no stranger to the concept of a feisty debate. But why the threats of violence? The willingness of wing-nut Web

devotees everywhere to jump aboard the hostility train was staggering and extremely unfestive. Even Gawker fanned the flames, calling me a “noted gay male.” How about “ping-pong ace” or “animal lover?” There are many other facets to the First Elf, you know.

The one person who kept her sense of humor was Hedda Lettuce herself. (She apparently decoupaged her ball while volunteering at a senior gay fund-raiser.) Spewing double-entendres, she blogged about the exhilaration she experienced knowing that one of her balls was now hanging on the White House tree.

The irony of Tinselgate is fairly breathtaking: A person donates his time and expertise—for free!—thereby saving taxpayer money. That same person then uses his ingenuity—incorporating the creativity of kids and needy folk and reusing tchotchkes from previous administrations, thereby saving even more dosh—and ends up on the receiving end of a torrent of threats and physical abuse from his fellow Americans.

And so to you, Mr. Breitbart. Now that the dust has settled and the homicidal emails have slowed to a trickle, I realize that I owe you a debt of gratitude. By dropping the First Elf in the poop, you have unwittingly provided me with a searing insight into the pathetic and disastrous state of our comment-obsessed culture. Thanks to you, I see now that there are two kinds of people in the world: In the first group, we have those who “do,” and in the second group, we have those who sit at their computers on their ever-widening asses blogging, platforming and commenting on the not-always-perfect efforts of the first group. Tinselgate has renewed my commitment to keep my tight ass fairly and squarely plonked in that first group.

Thanks, and happy New Year!

Sitting at a desk, beneath a framed drawing of Uncle Sam with an NBC peacock logo on his hat, Mr. Kelly tapped away at a laptop computer. On the other side of the room, a wall-mounted flat-screen television flickered to life.

The presentation began with a graphical story, rife with pie charts and upward-facing arrows, about MSNBC’s ratings growth since the 2006 midterm elections. The story progressed through the campaign primaries, shimmied through a Rachel Maddow victory dance, breezed over the excitement of election day and then lingered on MSNBC’s ratings in March and April of 2009.

“Here’s where we start getting into beating CNN in prime time,” said Mr. Kelly, gesturing at the screen. A series of brightly covered graphics highlighted MSNBC’s ratings. Various matrices showing Fox’s continued ratings dominance in cable news lurked in near invisibility at the periphery. “We have Fox up there, too,” said Mr. Kelly. “But they’re hidden.”

Anyhow. “This is what we look like,” he said. “And, oh, by the way, we have scale. And oh, by the way, we are No. 2. And oh, by the way, CNN is in decline.”

The presentation shifted from touting MSNBC’s anchors to touting MSNBC’s audience. A litany of buzzwords lit up the screen: progressive, young, professional, affluent. A video began.

“We are responsible leaders,” read a deep voice, the sonorous words accompanied by stark notes on a piano. “We are committed to change. We are younger and engaged. We are connected to the Internet. … We are the ones who make a difference. … We are MSNBC.”

The confident faces of young men and women of varying ethnicity looked out from the screen. A teacher posed in a classroom. A young Asian man, glistening with confidence and hair product, puffed out his chest. President Obama gazed out from a podium. An American flag waved in the wind. It was the United Colors of Benetton meets the Steelworkers of America meets Keith Olbermann meets President Obama meets MSNBC.

“Here’s that subliminal messaging that we put forward,” said Mr. Kelly. “We say we are the pulse of the nation right now. The change that this country voted for back in November is gathering each and every day and every evening on MSNBC.”

The person the country voted for doesn’t seem to mind MSNBC’s advances a bit. On May 4, a CSPAN clip went viral that showed Kareem Dale, a special assistant to the president for arts and culture, telling the audience at a black-tie event, “At the White House, as we always like to say, we love MSNBC.”

This is not a mistake. And it’s not really a sentimental or political relationship. It’s all business.

“A year from now, we will look back and say, ‘O.K., have we moved the needle from the client who was spending 38 percent with CNN and only 18 percent with us?’” said Mr. Kelly. “Has that changed? I don’t expect to get 38 percent in a year’s time. But maybe we get ourselves to 28 percent or therein.”

OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS, FOR THE FIRST TIME in the network’s 13-year history, MSNBC scored narrow prime-time (8 p.m. to 11 p.m.) victories over CNN in the key ad sales demographic (25-54), touching off celebrations at 30 Rock and a flurry of articles and blog posts questioning CNN’s programming strategy.

Along the way, MSNBC had managed to translate a slight advantage in a narrowly defined criterion (in April, MSNBC averaged 298,000 viewers in the demo during weeknight prime time; CNN averaged 265,000) into a public-relations killing.

Now, behind the scenes at NBC, a more challenging task was kicking into high gear, as a team of revved-up ad salesmen feverishly struggled to translate MSNBC’s embryonic and fragile claim as the No. 2 cable news network into something bankable in a brutal advertising environment.

For MSNBC, Lieberman Research Worldwide corralled some 1,300 cable news users into a series of focus groups. After much poking and prodding about programming preferences, values and consumption habits, the research team came up with five archetypes of cable news consumers: (1) conservatives, (2) optimists, (3) stringents, (4) enterprisers, and (5) passives.

According to the study’s findings, MSNBC did particularly well among the optimists and enterprisers—an upwardly mobile, highly educated, cosmopolitan TV news consumer, more or less typified by spiky hair, a penchant for activism, affinity for gadgetry and love of Rachel Maddow.

Andrew Schulman, the director of marketing for NBC News networks, who was perched on a chair near Mr. Kelly, jumped in to explain how the marketing campaign had evolved from there.

“We re-branded those groups to work in the voice of MSNBC and the voice of our sales initiative,” said Mr. Schulman. “We changed the names so that they were a little bit more direct, a little bit more salesy.”

To wit: “Optimists and enterprisers” evolved into “movers and shakers,” which ultimately gave rise to “changemakers.” “That’s our battle cry,” said Mr. Kelly.

Back in November, when MSNBC began using “the power of change” as a tag line for the network, conservative critics howled angrily, citing the echo of President Obama’s rhetoric as further evidence of MSNBC’s liberal bias. But despite being dragged through the mud in right-wing corners of the Web, during recent months, the MSNBC marketers have, in a sense, flipped the proposition: Being associated with the Obama movement, they clearly believe, will be good for business, not bad.

Mr. Schulman stood up and handed The Observer an April 27 issue of Advertising Age, which was turned to a full-page ad touting MSNBC’s audience. “WE, THE PEOPLE, the doers, the movers, the activators, live with purpose today, empowered by the promise of tomorrow,” read the ad, which continued for several more declarative lines (“We watch, read and blog”) before culminating in “MSNBC Changemakers … Join the Momentum.”

“It’s our manifesto, in a way,” said Mr. Schulman.

The words of the manifesto were superimposed over the image of a man whose face was cut off by the top of the page and whose hands rested, palms up, in the foreground. The MSNBC model’s complexion and body language called to mind … President Obama!

The presentation, Mr. Kelly explained, was one part of an overall strategy to gobble up some of CNN’s market share. Just a few days earlier, he had traveled to Chicago with MSNBC’s president, Phil Griffin, where they had sat down with dozens of advertising agencies and, again and again, told the representatives why their clients ought to be shifting their precious advertising dollars from CNN to MSNBC.

“Certainly, advertising budgets are not robust,” said Mr. Kelly. “Some are contracting. The notion is—where am I spending the money for the greatest value?”

“CNN over time, being this strong brand, has elevated its price point such that, generally speaking, they are the most expensive cable news network out there,” he added. “Fox and ourselves both take issue with that given their performance. Why would you continue to buy the premium CPM for the third- or fourth-rated network in our universe?”

“Look, it might not pay off this month or next month,” Mr. Griffin said to The Observer a few days later. “It may not pay off until the first quarter of next year. But as long as we keep growing the way we are, advertisers are going to start to take notice. We want a bigger share of what they’re investing in. Because we now deserve it.”

ON MONDAY, MAY 4, AS PART OF A recently launched print campaign geared toward advertisers, MSNBC took out a full-page ad in the business section of The New York Times. The ad features the smiling head shots of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. “MSNBC beats CNN in Primetime,” read big block letters. “Again.” And below the fold: “Buy into the momentum.”

When contacted by The Observer for a response, CNN representatives suggested that MSNBC might be overplaying their momentum to advertisers. The original cable news network does their integrated ad sales across all platforms, including its Web site, CNN, HLN (formerly Headline News) CNN Airport, iReport, etc., and thus arguably continues to offer advertisers much greater overall reach to consumers than MSNBC. When considering that combined reach, for instance, during the month of April, either a HLN or a CNN show topped MSNBC for second place in the demo in every hour between 6 p.m. and midnight, except for 9 p.m.

CNN insiders suggested that what advertisers pay CNN a premium for is not what MSNBC is delivering.

Mr. Kelly said that MSNBC’s pitch to advertisers was bolstered in large part by an audience-segmentation study, which the network commissioned back in November on the heels of the election.

At the time, Mr. Kelly and his colleagues turned to Lieberman Research Worldwide, a firm already familiar to the brass at NBC Universal.

Several years earlier, Lieberman Research Worldwide had helped Bravo brand its audience the “The Affluencers”—a class of upwardly mobile, cosmopolitan TV consumers, identifiable by their spiky hair, stylish couture, willingness to throw disposable income at anything that accessorizes well with their BlackBerry or iPhone, and a love for Tim Gunn. For MSNBC, “Changemakers” was the result.

Throughout the discussion of MSNBC’s audience, neither Mr. Kelly nor Mr. Schulman had said one word about their viewers’ political inclinations. At one point, The Observer asked why the Lieberman study had pinpointed conservatives as an audience type but not liberals. Mr. Kelly immediately corrected us, pointing out that “conservatives” referred to viewers with particularly curmudgeonly consumption habits. It had nothing to do with, say, who they had voted for in the 2008 election.

So did they ever bring up the subject of the president’s popularity and his legions of young fans in the meetings with advertisers? Not explicitly, said Mr. Kelly.

“In our presentation, we talk about how MSNBC is the pulse of the nation,” he said. “It’s an intuitive, subliminal sort of messaging that lines up nicely with President Obama, who is younger, progressive, affluent, well educated and a man of color, obviously.”

“The country has voted for change—as demonstrated in the midterm and presidential election,” Mr. Kelly added. “It doesn’t surprise us that our numbers are growing.”

Writes Mr. Kamen:

A Presidential pardon may be in order.

I'm still a little confused as to why, if the White House hasn't said anything on the subject, it's factually incorrect to say that, on the basis of new evidence, its role was "wider than it said."  

But whatever.  As The Times understands, the substance of the report -- that White House lawyers were involved in the decision to destroy interrogation tapes -- which the White House doesn't deny, is a whole lot more important than the dispute over the sub-hed. By conceding the minor point, The Times has ensured that the focus stays on the news itself -- which is exactly what the White House wanted to avoid.