New NYT public editor Clark Hoyt criticizes the paper’s decision to keep the JFK terror plot off the front page, but writes that he doesn’t believe there were “political motives” at work:
My own view is that The Times story was very well reported and written. It quickly made clear that the accused men were a long way from action and that despite the apocalyptic comments of the U.S. attorney, their ability to carry out an attack on the airport was very much open to question.
But instead of being a reason to put the story inside, I think this was a compelling reason to keep it on Page 1. This reporting put the story in an appropriate perspective, far calmer than the day’s television coverage. Giving the story subdued play on the front page — toward the bottom, with a single-column headline — would have told readers that The Times knew what they were concerned about, that there was something real here, but that it wasn’t anywhere near happening and there was no need for alarm. […]
Do I think political motives were at work? I can’t read minds, but I believe after talking with these editors that they were focused on the substance of the story, the facts. They were mindful of a history in which terrorism cases have been blown out of proportion. They were trying to make the right call based on solid journalistic grounds.