Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Noting that there is a large wall between the news gathering and reporting side of the house and the opinion side of the house at the NY Times, and wrapping itself in "patriotism", the editorial side gives its opinion of the SWIFT controversy. Two paragraphs that caught my eye: Our news colleagues work under the assumption that they should let the people know anything important that the reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding reason for withholding the information. They try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration. It is certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush administration politically would try to do so by writing about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult for terrorists to wire large sums of money.The "we just publish what we think the people would find important" meme is rather trite, don't you think? Especially when you read the disclaimer included in paragraph one which says they "try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration", and then turn around in the next paragraph and all but say "but these guys deserve it". They deserve it, apparently, because the administration has become too powerful in the eyes of the Times. Fine. But to pretend this has nothing to do with politics or the executive branch's power is insulting. The editorial notes that the Times withheld the wiretapping story for a year while it weighed the administration's arguments. When it published it was acknowledged that at best the program dwelt in a very gray legal area. Not so with this program. Arguments have been made that what the Times published really didn't break any new ground or give away any real secrets. That's like saying that we have a spy operation in Iran is akin to saying we have a spy named Mr. X in Tehran and he lives in a particular house on a particular street. The fact that terrorists are aware that we're trying to chase down their financial transactions and trace them to the source doesn't mean it is prudent to divulge the particulars of how we're doing it and the means. They may suspect it. But we certainly aren't well served by announcing to them the particular means or system we use. The Times goes on: The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been under way for years with no restrictions except those that the executive branch chooses to impose on itself — or, in the case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand. This seems to us very much the sort of thing the other branches of government, and the public, should be nervously aware of.If there were illegal abuses of which the Times was aware or if this were simply an illegal program I would agree. But the statement from the Times would have one assume that the other branches of government weren't aware of this program and its particulars and that simply isn't true. Congress was aware of the program, and Congressmen from both sides of the isle (to include Rep. Murtha) argued against publication. It is important to note that it wasn't just the executive branch or the Republicans who argued against publication as many would have you believe. And the rationalization the Times offers here is weak at best. It also shows that while government argued strenuously against publication, it did nothing to stop it. To me that says "freedom of the press" is alive and well, at least on one side of the equation. But as dangerous as the Times sees the current administration, there are equally dangerous signs that the media may not be exercising its responsibilities to the public it claims to serve as judiciously as possible, or, perhaps overstepping its bounds. I was reminded of this by a post at Sweetness and Light where they noted a statement by Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post which frankly stunned me: “We do not want to inadvertently threaten human life or legitimately harm national security in our reporting,” he said. “But it’s important . . . in our constitutional system that these final decisions be made by newspaper editors and not the government.”… Really? Constitutional system? Tell me, under that Constitutional system, who elected them to make those decisions? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
