As Alexander Bickel wrote, the relationship between government and the press in the free society is an inevitable and essential contest. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy to function, especially on national security, and the press in its watchdog role tries to discover what it can. The government can't expect total secrecy, Bickel writes, "but the game similarly calls on the press to consider the responsibilities that its position implies. Not everything is fit to print." The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?
The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.
So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.
(via Life-of-Rubin) Mediacrity has a great post about the language the Times uses.
Thus the Palestinians did not kidnap an Israeli soldier-- a term used by pretty much everyone other than the terrorists themselves -- they "captured" him. The Israelis did not arrest Hamas legislators, they "seized" them.Finally, R' Gil Student gets a huge mazel tov on the birth of a baby boy!! Wonderful news! (Shidduch!?! :) )
And, speaking of shidduchim... Nephtuli got married today! Mazel Tov!
The Times still has a lot of tshuvah to do for employing Judith Miller as a shill for the Bush administration. It is natural that they would over-react in the opposite direction. Rambam even commented that such is appropriate!
ReplyDeleteAlso, while the *Journal* probably maintains a greater distance between its own editorial pages and its news pages than any other major newspaper, the fact remains that the *Journal* did indeed publish a story on this matter at the same time as the *Times*.
Charlie - that's the point of the article. You need to read through the whole piece. There's a marked difference between the Times' handling of it and the Journal's.
ReplyDeleteShoot the messenger. When the facts are against you, you must muddy the facts.
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to the strategy of attacking the messenger rather than responding to the attack. Otherwise known as a big, fat ad hominem, mixed with some misdirection.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll respond less glibly to the linked op-ed.
Around the same time, Treasury contacted Journal reporter Glenn Simpson to offer him the same declassified information... Our guess is that Treasury also felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times, which was pushing a violation-of-privacy angle; on our reading of the two June 23 stories, he did.
Disingenous. Treasury contacted Mr. Simpson because would write a "straighter story?" Sure, government officials always go to their pet reporters in the interest of the most fair and balanced reporting.
In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America's main weapons.
False analogy. Giving away troop movements immediately and directly endangers said troups. The Times story immediately and directly endangered no one, going so far as to "delay publishing by a day to give Mr. Fratto a chance to bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas."
We do know, however, that Journal editors have withheld stories at the government's request in the past, notably during the Gulf War when they learned that a European company that had sold defense equipment to Iraq was secretly helping the Pentagon.
While that example is admirable, to argue that more generally withholding stories "at the government's request" is not something to be proud of and in fact could be a much bigger threat to our country than terrorism.
We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.
Disingenous. If the Times has indeed tried to use the Journal as a heatshield, it's because the Journal is known to lean right rather than because it has more credibility.
The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?
Except that government, and this administration in particular, have a long history of bad motives when it makes a request not to publish.
The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith.
Because of the right-wing slime machine which has convinced half the country that the Times is to the left what FOX is to the right, nevermind the "facts" like the Times cheerleading of Iraq, looking the other way on questionable statements from the administration, and Judith Miller.
So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.
One is an illegal leak intended as retaliation which revealed a covert intelligence officer, putting lives at risk. The other is a whistleblower pointing out possibly illegal government activity.
I completely disagree.
ReplyDeleteDisingenous. Treasury contacted Mr. Simpson because would write a "straighter story?" Sure, government officials always go to their pet reporters in the interest of the most fair and balanced reporting.
The Treasury is well aware of the bias of the Times in reporting on actions of this administration. The Journal is the most prominent paper that does not have a reputation for bias, so they went to them.
While that example is admirable, to argue that more generally withholding stories "at the government's request" is not something to be proud of and in fact could be a much bigger threat to our country than terrorism.
I think you meant to say "one could argue". And you're ignoring other statements in this piece, including their assertion that the place of the press is to serve as a watchdog of the government. They must use their own common sense, and publishing stories that threaten or may threaten national security while serving the American public in no way seems to be against common sense. It's not as if the story would disappear - the Times could simply report on it when it is no longer an issue. Instead, the Times waits only a short period of time and reports on them with "facts" that are wrong.
Disingenous. If the Times has indeed tried to use the Journal as a heatshield, it's because the Journal is known to lean right rather than because it has more credibility.
Partially disagree. It's more like the Times is saying both: "Hey, look at the Journal: They're not as biased because they're on the right and they reported it too!" This is also debunked by the separation of the news and editorials point.
If you are trying to argue that the Times' point is that the Journal's news section is more to the right than the Times', that is essentially admitting that the Times' reporting is slanted to the left. That speaks of much larger problems with the Times. Furthermore, the WSJ's reporting is actually further to the left than the Times', according to the widely quoted UCLA study from last year.
False analogy. Giving away troop movements immediately and directly endangers said troups. The Times story immediately and directly endangered no one, going so far as to "delay publishing by a day to give Mr. Fratto a chance to bring the appropriate Treasury official home from overseas."
You've contradicted yourself. The Treasury official obviously would be threatened, or they would not have had to bring him home. Furthermore, you've missed the point here. It's not that they're giving away troop movements that will cause them to be threatened; it's that they've made their movements ineffectual and pointless. It's most similar to warning them of an impending attack so they can get away.
Except that government, and this administration in particular, have a long history of bad motives when it makes a request not to publish.
Proof? That's an incredibly biased perspective. What bad motives? You're assuming that the government is lying when they say that it holds them back from tracking terrorists. We'll never know, because the Times already blew it.
In how many cases has the government asked the papers not to report on something? So far, we know of two: The NSA wiretaps and this. Both are logically key to tracking terror suspects; in neither case is there any evidence that the government exceeded its authority.
Because of the right-wing slime machine which has convinced half the country that the Times is to the left what FOX is to the right, nevermind the "facts" like the Times cheerleading of Iraq, looking the other way on questionable statements from the administration, and Judith Miller.
No, because of the way the Times reports their news. It's not a "RW slime machine." It's simply biased reporting for a number of years to the point of transparency.
One is an illegal leak intended as retaliation which revealed a covert intelligence officer, putting lives at risk. The other is a whistleblower pointing out possibly illegal government activity.
False and false, and it fails to address the point. The more we learn about the Plame case, the clearer it becomes that Wilson made up a story for a scathing op-ed - in the NYTimes - and the government noted that to the press to clarify that point. Plame wasn't covert at the time, and there was nothing illegal in any of the actions that were taken, much to the disappointment of the Times. Essentially, the Times printed a false editorial and got upset when the government called them on it.
I'm just sad that the situation and distrust has gotten so bad all around that people can't even agree what the basic facts are, let alone agree what to do about them. I believe the right has made a concerted effort over the last few decades to sow distrust in the mainstream media to such an extent that a big chunk of the country will only believe what Rush or Hannity or FOX News tells them.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to be open to potential biases and conflicts of interest, but this has gone way, way too far. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but the right has really muddied the waters. People are acting like the NYT is simply the left's version of Sean Hannity, which is just insane. You can argue about certain words here and there ("militant" vs. "terrorist" is a favorite) and argue about whether the NYT should have published this story or not.
But it's gotten to the point where if the Times, the Washington Post, and CBS News all published different pictures from different sources showing Bush punching somebody in the face along with medical records showing Bush's hand was broken that same day and DNA evidence that the other man's blood was on his fist, a third of the nation would believe Limbaugh and Hannity's line about how it was really an alien dressed up as Bush.
I'm saddened as well. I believe the left has made a concerted effort over the past few decades to shift mainstream media reporting to their point of view, and that a large chunk of the country doesn't even realize it.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to be open to potential biases and conflicts of interest, but this has gone way, way too far. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but the left has really muddied the waters. People are acting like President Bush is simply the right's version of Osama bin Laden, which is just insane. The changing of certain words here and there ("militant" vs. "terrorist" is a favorite) and publishing of certain stories that should not be dramatically skew people's perceptions and negatively affect reality.
But it's gotten to the point where no matter what the facts really are, and how much the results turn out to be false, 1/3 of the country still believes all the stories that the mainstream media peddles.