Lets Discuss the Press

[therealUT]

The media released the news and facts of the situation. The media is not the law enforcement. They can report news and let whoever decide on what is the case. They question the legality and leave it to others to decide. It's not in a defined power for them to investigate laws being broken. It is the Executive Branch's role to not accuse without having some sort of basis to do so.

As I said, the media is independent and not a government entity. Do you want your government to go around as if it were a police state and accuse and intimidate people without cause? If you have a problem with the process, have your Congress change it. I think it's cheap for politicians to use this to score points with their base and then do nothing about it. I think it's even more cheap to take this fully out on the media and do nothing to ensure this process on the Executive's part were legal and constitutional. It's funny that people will trust the government in some cases but not in other cases.

You can play a game of semantics all you want, but it is the same thing.

 

[therealUT]

really? You just said there were. And according to Bush the area of Baghdad is quite hostile. His own words indicate that as well as his own actions beefing up security. I've talked to many actually. I've talked to many Iraqis, foreign aid workers, and soldiers on the ground as well.

I know the area of Baghdad is quite hostile...what are you getting at? In the areas that are pretty much free of hostility, the media no longer has an interest. Those people, whose living are being improved, are not being intereviewed. The media has a more vested interest in the hostile areas.

 

[volinbham]

It is the Executive Branch's role to not accuse without having some sort of basis to do so.

As I said, the media is independent and not a government entity. Do you want your government to go around as if it were a police state and accuse and intimidate people without cause?

I think you're overstating the issue. There are laws about revealing classified information that apply to the press. It was suggested that those laws MAY have been violated in this case.

Finally, it is not without cause. The NYT editor put himself in a position to decide what disclosure of information will/will not harm national security. Clearly he and his peers are not qualified to make these decisions. Go back and read his rationale - it is weak, contradictory and likely wrong.

 

[therealUT]

The burden of proof in journalism carries a necessarily different weight than the judicial burden of proof. Reliably sourced and confirming sourced journalism does not constitute slander. You know this.

Further, while the recent conversations in the beltway were ostensibly threatening the media's use of leaked information, the real target of the talk was the leakers, i.e. "You talk to a reporter and you're veil of anonymity will be ripped away.". Good tact from the White House point of view, but perilous to journalist's attempts to get at the truth.

I agree, I think it is plainly irresponsible journalism to cite anything in which the source refused to be named. As well, it is pure cowardice from the source themself.

 

[volinbham]

The burden of proof in journalism carries a necessarily different weight than the judicial burden of proof. Reliably sourced and confirming sourced journalism does not constitute slander. You know this.

Further, while the recent conversations in the beltway were ostensibly threatening the media's use of leaked information, the real target of the talk was the leakers, i.e. "You talk to a reporter and you're veil of anonymity will be ripped away.". Good tact from the White House point of view, but perilous to journalist's attempts to get at the truth.

Agreed but philosophically speaking, should journalists have unfettered access to the "truth"?

 

[orange+white=heaven]

Agreed but philosophically speaking, should journalists have unfettered access to the "truth"?

I'd be willing to bet that every journalist inside that beltway would tell you that such access has never and will never be unfettered. They'd probably even say if pressed that they like that fact. That it should be hard. The difficulty in getting the appropriate source to agree to confirm lends credibility to the strength of the story.
Philosophically speaking, a good and credible source should be hard to get.
It should not be impossible to keep.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You can play a game of semantics all you want, but it is the same thing.

So you're comparing the government to the media? I guess you'll disagree with the Founding Fathers then. They have quite a difference preception between the two and even put those perceptions in writing.

 

[therealUT]

So you're comparing the government to the media? I guess you'll disagree with the Founding Fathers then. They have quite a difference preception between the two and even put those perceptions in writing.

No, I am comparing the word "allegation" to the phrase "publicly questioning the legality."

 

[CSpindizzy]

I think you're overstating the issue. There are laws about revealing classified information that apply to the press. It was suggested that those laws MAY have been violated in this case.

Finally, it is not without cause. The NYT editor put himself in a position to decide what disclosure of information will/will not harm national security. Clearly he and his peers are not qualified to make these decisions. Go back and read his rationale - it is weak, contradictory and likely wrong.

So the rationale on the opposite side is any better? Frankly it's fine to allow the government a free pass to do what they want with no oversight? We should not have any accountability over their actions? Keep in mind the media from the birth of this nation, even before, has been the only thing to save us from the tyranny of government. Government is the fear portrayed by the founding fathers, NOT the media. You're basically saying the government carries the pull on who is right and who should be listened to. You're basically saying the media should be held accountable in their actions but the government should not....no watchdogs at all.

 

[CSpindizzy]

No, I am comparing the word "allegation" to the phrase "publicly questioning the legality."

I can easily flip this around. You've made every attempt to hold the media accountable for their actions but you've made NO attempt to hold the government accountable. Why is one way permitted by you and the other not?

 

[therealUT]

So the rationale on the opposite side is any better? Frankly it's fine to allow the government a free pass to do what they want with no oversight? We should not have any accountability over their actions? Keep in mind the media from the birth of this nation, even before, has been the only thing to save us from the tyranny of government. Government is the fear portrayed by the founding fathers, NOT the media. You're basically saying the government carries the pull on who is right and who should be listened to. You're basically saying the media should be held accountable in their actions but the government should not....no watchdogs at all.

I did not know that the media was a check on the executive office. All these years, I thought the judicial branch and the legislative branches checked the executive.

Also, I do not see how the media potentially breaching national security is a good thing.

 

[therealUT]

I can easily flip this around. You've made every attempt to hold the media accountable for their actions but you've made NO attempt to hold the government accountable. Why is one way permitted by you and the other not?

Not at all. I just see absolutely nothing wrong with the gov't tracking the finances and phone conversations of terrorists and associates of terrorists.

 

[volinbham]

I'd be willing to bet that every journalist inside that beltway would tell you that such access has never and will never be unfettered. They'd probably even say if pressed that they like that fact. That it should be hard. The difficulty in getting the appropriate source to agree to confirm lends credibility to the strength of the story.
Philosophically speaking, a good and credible source should be hard to get.
It should not be impossible to keep.

Understood. Maybe as a different way of getting at the issue is the what information should be available to the press and what shouldn't? Further, when the press comes into possession of knowlege that shouldn't be public (assuming there is such information) how is the decision made?

I realize that having a free press means that lines will be crossed. My concern is that a philosophy of speaking truth to power sometimes over-emphasizes a right to know and under-emphasizes the negative consequences of revealing the information.

 

[therealUT]

I can easily flip this around. You've made every attempt to hold the media accountable for their actions but you've made NO attempt to hold the government accountable. Why is one way permitted by you and the other not?

Also, when has the media ever been held accountable for its reporting? Newsweek set off deadly riots in the Arab world after falsely reporting that Marines at GTMO flushed a Koran down the toilet...did anything happen to Newsweek? No.

Speaking of zero accountability, the media does not even name sources of their information anymore, and people buy into wholeheartedly! This has come back to bite only 1 media icon I can think of, Dan Rather. Other than that, nothing.

 

[volinbham]

So the rationale on the opposite side is any better? Frankly it's fine to allow the government a free pass to do what they want with no oversight? We should not have any accountability over their actions? Keep in mind the media from the birth of this nation, even before, has been the only thing to save us from the tyranny of government. Government is the fear portrayed by the founding fathers, NOT the media. You're basically saying the government carries the pull on who is right and who should be listened to. You're basically saying the media should be held accountable in their actions but the government should not....no watchdogs at all.

Wow, you certainly can jump to conclusions. I am not arguing a "free pass", "no oversight", "no accountability" etc.

We are discussing a particular instance and in that instance I think it's wise to question the role of the press, the government, etc.

The post you referenced simply explains why not prosecuting the NYT is not tantamount to tacitly endorsing the leaks as a tactic to beat on the press.

 

[orange+white=heaven]

... My concern is that a philosophy of speaking truth to power sometimes over-emphasizes a right to know and under-emphasizes the negative consequences of revealing the information.

And so we arrive at the crux, the current weather conditions at the line of storms in the DC area. The responsible thing, the thing that should happen, is for reasonable adults to discuss frankly the merits of going to print versus potential damage to ongoing efforts of the government.

The snag is the clear contention that exists between the press and a "you are my enemy" White House. Outside of reasonable people acting not as though they were still in grade school, I don't see an answer that both fronts of the storm will respect....

 

[CSpindizzy]

Not at all. I just see absolutely nothing wrong with the gov't tracking the finances and phone conversations of terrorists and associates of terrorists.

But are they ONLY doing that? Who allotted them that power? Who is checking in on it? No oversight. Ever heard of checks and balances? Or are you one who is allowing the government unlimited law enforcement powers? Your post about Nazi Germany being a democracy comes back to mind of how a autocratic state is formed when the press is suppressed and the legislative body signs away powers to the executive.

 

[volinbham]

And so we arrive at the crux, the current weather conditions at the line of storms in the DC area. The responsible thing, the thing that should happen, is for reasonable adults to discuss frankly the merits of going to print versus potential damage to ongoing efforts of the government.

The snag is the clear contention that exists between the press and a "you are my enemy" White House. Outside of reasonable people acting not as though they were still in grade school, I don't see an answer that both fronts of the storm will respect....

Nice analogy and I think you're right on.

Now for the next "ought to" discussion. If the press prizes objectivity, shouldn't they resist the personal disdain/dislike they have for the admin and make all efforts to not treat them any differently than any other admin? Human nature says it would be tough to do so. Is their "world view" shaded by the attitude of the WH?

An attempt at an analogy. It is often suggested that Gitmo is such a problem because the US is using tactics that are beneath her. While other countries, enemies may not have these restrictions we must because we are a shining example. The WH and the press should have different tactics. The WH is a political entity that has an agenda and a vested interested in pursuing that agenda. The press should have no policy agenda. Shouldn't they then be the adult in this battle? Shouldn't resist the urge to put a little extra scrutiny here because of attitude towards them?

 

[therealUT]

But are they ONLY doing that? Who allotted them that power? Who is checking in on it? No oversight. Ever heard of checks and balances? Or are you one who is allowing the government unlimited law enforcement powers? Your post about Nazi Germany being a democracy comes back to mind of how a autocratic state is formed when the press is suppressed and the legislative body signs away powers to the executive.

I do not care if they are monitoring international phone calls of every U.S. citizen and tracking all international financial transactions. Why would that bother me? The information they are gathering is not to be used in court. It is to be used to militarily eliminate terrorist cells. You are probably opposed to the Patriot Act to because the gov't can flag and keep track of what library books you borrow from the gov't.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Wow, you certainly can jump to conclusions. I am not arguing a "free pass", "no oversight", "no accountability" etc.

We are discussing a particular instance and in that instance I think it's wise to question the role of the press, the government, etc.

The post you referenced simply explains why not prosecuting the NYT is not tantamount to tacitly endorsing the leaks as a tactic to beat on the press.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm only throwing out possible concepts and ideas. So you're telling me all of the Right pundits and talk shows did NOT take advantage of these acts to stir up their base?

I have no problem with anyone questioning the media or government. But I do have an issue with the government with its powers going after the media or citizens and claiming illegal acts and not backing it up. There is a huge difference between a DA coming to you with the power of their office and accusing you of breaking the law, killing someone, etc. and me questioning whether something you did was illegal. I have no power. I do not have the ability to get you fired or threaten you and your livlihood, etc.

Again, if the reporters did something wrong, take them to court. Sue them. Get an injunction against them. I've argued this point before. The US government had the ability to go before a federal judge of their choosing and get an injunction against these stories since they knew ahead of time they were coming out. in every instance, nothing was done. The government had public opinion on their side supposedly and had courts favoring them supposedly. They also had a public perception that papers like the NYT and WP were liberal rags trying to undermine them at every turn.

Just why did they sit back and do nothing? And months after, why has nothing been pursued? not a single reporter has been hauled in and questioned. Why?

 

[CSpindizzy]

I do not care if they are monitoring international phone calls of every U.S. citizen and tracking all international financial transactions. Why would that bother me? The information they are gathering is not to be used in court. It is to be used to militarily eliminate terrorist cells. You are probably opposed to the Patriot Act to because the gov't can flag and keep track of what library books you borrow from the gov't.

You're assuming that this is all they're doing. There is no proof that they are ONLY doing this and doing so according to their legal and constitutional powers. You have basically signed away your faith in trust in government. Scary. Truly scary. You have basically admitted that you care less of what the government does as long as it is for the security of the nation. Forget rights, freedoms, and the whole concept of what this nation was founded on. The government can kick down your neighbor's door all day long and ahul him off to who knows where as long as you're cozy in your house right?

 

[therealUT]

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I'm only throwing out possible concepts and ideas. So you're telling me all of the Right pundits and talk shows did NOT take advantage of these acts to stir up their base?

I have no problem with anyone questioning the media or government. But I do have an issue with the government with its powers going after the media or citizens and claiming illegal acts and not backing it up. There is a huge difference between a DA coming to you with the power of their office and accusing you of breaking the law, killing someone, etc. and me questioning whether something you did was illegal. I have no power. I do not have the ability to get you fired or threaten you and your livlihood, etc.

Again, if the reporters did something wrong, take them to court. Sue them. Get an injunction against them. I've argued this point before. The US government had the ability to go before a federal judge of their choosing and get an injunction against these stories since they knew ahead of time they were coming out. in every instance, nothing was done. The government had public opinion on their side supposedly and had courts favoring them supposedly. They also had a public perception that papers like the NYT and WP were liberal rags trying to undermine them at every turn.

Just why did they sit back and do nothing? And months after, why has nothing been pursued? not a single reporter has been hauled in and questioned. Why?

The media has the ability to get someone removed from office though. The media has extraordinary power in this country.

 

[vader]

A better philosophy would be, if you don't want stupid things printed about you in the news, don't become powerful. Most people can do all the stupid things their hearts desire and no one will ever read about it.

It is the life they chose.

 

[therealUT]

You're assuming that this is all they're doing. There is no proof that they are ONLY doing this and doing so according to their legal and constitutional powers. You have basically signed away your faith in trust in government. Scary. Truly scary. You have basically admitted that you care less of what the government does as long as it is for the security of the nation. Forget rights, freedoms, and the whole concept of what this nation was founded on. The government can kick down your neighbor's door all day long and ahul him off to who knows where as long as you're cozy in your house right?

Where does the gov't tracking my financial transaction and listening in on phone calls infringe on my freedoms? It in no way affects my life, liberty, or my ability to pursue happiness. Also, your paranoid delusions about the gov't are just as frightening, if not more. There is never going to be any proof of what is not happening. So, you will always be able to state: There is no proof that they are ONLY doing this...

Also, again, you jump to some severe conclusions, and illogically so. I stated that the information they are obtaining can not be used in courts. Therefore, the gov't cannot haul off my neighbors as long as they are US citizens. If they are not US citizens, and they have been conversing with terrorist organizations or funding them, then I have no problem with them being hauled off. If you are not a US citizen, then you should probably live very cautiously in this country anyway, and do whatever you can to stay off the radar.

 

[CSpindizzy]

The media has the ability to get someone removed from office though. The media has extraordinary power in this country.

How is that? They can push a story and that is it. They cannot remove anyone from office. If they could, GWB would have been long gone.