In response to considerable public criticism of its coverage of the Wen Ho Lee case, the New York Times took the unusual step of investigating its own work. The result is a rehash of old material presented in a way that exonerates the Times and tries to cast further suspicion on Lee. PNS contributor Prof. Ling-Chi Wang is Chair of the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of California at Berkeley.

Warmed old rice ("chao lang fan" -- a Cantonese expression politely translated as "same old crap") best describes the New York Times' two-part article on the Wen Ho Lee case.

The unusually long -- nearly 15,000 words -- piece, described as the result of "more than four months of reporting" involving seven reporters, contains no significantly new information on the case. Rather, it is a thorough summary of the bits and pieces fed to the public through leaks and "investigative" journalism since December 1998.

Last fall, shortly after Wen Ho Lee's release, the Times reminded readers, the newspaper published an "unusual statement assessing its own coverage. It found many strengths, but also some weaknesses." It promised a "thorough re-examination." This came after several scathing attacks on the Times, including accusations that the Times was responsible for causing Lee needless suffering.

Does this reassessment eliminate the "weaknesses"? The answer is unequivocally "no!" In fact, the series can be read as another attempt by the paper to justify its misleading if not wrongful reporting to date.

The one new twist is the suggestion that government investigators and prosecutors bungled the case. In other words, if the paper had erred -- even if it had misled the public on a grand scale -- wasn't it the fault of the government, the source of all information?

In this respect, the Times remains defensive and unrepentant. In fact, the latest series make it clear that the paper is not only unwilling to admit it had been unfair but it still continues to suggest that Wen Ho Lee is not wholly innocent.

To the Times, Wen Ho Lee remains mysterious, an enigma -- even though there is no evidence of espionage. With these articles, the New York Times joins the government in maintaining an air of suspicion against Wen Ho Lee, if not insisting on his guilt. By taking the readers through the history of the case, blow by blow, including all the charges made and all the government missteps, the paper reinforces the image of Lee as a primary suspect for stealing U.S. nuclear secrets if not for China, then for Taiwan.

The series does provide a good summary of how the government came to target Wen Ho Lee and how the prosecution of him seemed doomed to failure from the start. However, for those who have been following the case closely, there are no revelations.

Seven reporters over four months could have put the case -- step by step -- in the context of the power struggle between Democrats and Republicans. There is no sign they looked for political motives behind the major decisions, nor that they tried to find out how a series of leaks were orchestrated -- or why neither the FBI nor Energy Secretary Bill Richardson was interested in finding who was responsible though national security was involved.

Even though Wen Ho Lee is now free, the Times continues to treat him as a prime espionage suspect. Words used to depict Lee or his actions as "suspicious" or "deceptive" are generously sprinkled through the text -- they did manage to avoid "inscrutable," but the feeling is undeniable -- in one form or another, the words "secret," "spy," and "espionage" appear nearly 200 times.

The articles ultimately concludes by noting Lee's answers left the government "with a blur of questions." At the very least, this implies Wen Ho Lee has not been cooperating, and continues to hide the truth.

From my perspective, Wen Ho Lee has been cooperative from the very beginning of the investigation and naive. Since the government has turned up no evidence contradicting his testimony -- failed to do so, moreover, in Federal court -- what more can Wen Ho Lee do to prove his innocence?

It is disgraceful to hound Wen Ho Lee and hold him hostage by insisting on an interminable investigation. The New York Times has failed to live up to its own motto by printing, again and again, news unfit to print.