« In the mail.... | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Cubans Setting Trends »

I wonder whether the vehemence of the Bush administration's response to the Times is more a political ploy than a reflection of the actual "damage"done by the revelations. I mean, is the revealation of the bank monitoring more damaging than the earlier reports about warrantless wiretaps and monitoring of phone records? After those earlier cases, there was no talk about throwing reporters and editors in jail, like we are hearing now.

I agree that journalists need to be responsible about reporting stories that might get people killed. However, it is our responsibility — FYI: I am a professional journalist — to uncover what the government is doing and report those stories. That is especially true in cases where government activities might be infringing on our constitutionally protected rights.

That responsibility sometimes requires striking a balance between national security and the public's right to know. I'd just rather have journalists, and not the government, decide where that balance is.

Getting angry at the NYT is an exercise in futility. Don't buy it, don't read it, don't ackowledge it. If enough folks did that, they'd get the message where it hurts: in their 10-K.

Marc,

However, it is our responsibility — FYI: I am a professional journalist — to uncover what the government is doing and report those stories. That is especially true in cases where government activities might be infringing on our constitutionally protected rights.

Where do I even begin?

It is your responsibility to report the news responsibly. Notwithstanding your particular take on the "wiretapping" - which, incidenatlly, wasnt wiretapping perse, as they were not listening in on the conversations - what good could possibly come of this latest report on how the US tracks terrorist financing? The NYT itself stated in the very same story that the procedures had congressional approval and werent in any way illegal nor an affront on constitutional rights, so, whats the point of the story then? No one's rights were being compromised, so then, again, whats the point? The story only undermines the efforts of those who work to protect and maintain the very same principles that the NYT and journalists such as yourself state as your constitutional rights.

That responsibility sometimes requires striking a balance between national security and the public's right to know.

First, there was no balance struck in the story in question. While the public does have a right to know about the tracking of terrorist finances, if the procedures for same do not infringe upon the public's constitutional rights and running the story may, in fact, prevent the government from protecting that public as is their duty, then the responsible thing for the NYT and journalists to do is to withhold the story., It serves no informational purpose more important that the safety of the public.

I'd just rather have journalists, and not the government, decide where that balance is.

And who do journalists answer to? Did the public elect you? What gives you the right to decide what is best for me? I certainly didnt give you that right. I certainly didnt vote for the NYT to run the country. I didnt vote to put journalists in charge of national security.

I find it completely arrogant that reporters - who, in National Security Circles know about a thimble full of the oceans of information - feel they can make such decisions from the periphery.

There's a reason journalism majors have to take ethics courses. Apparently, the NYT and their staff have comepletly forgotten why.

We all know about the ideological bending of news by the New York Times, thus perhaps we should worry about the leakers not that #$% paper. Right now if could be that the NYT has connections with spies, usefulfools, and other ideologues hiding inside the US government and thus by publishing the information provided, this paper avoids revealing who these spies etc are being "run" by.

Oh and Marc,

One more thing. What "balance" did Herbert Mathews strike with his "reportage" on fidel castro and the revolution in the NYT?

Remember, he was a journalist as well and he made that decision on balance too.

Yesterday on a radio show, New York Representative Peter King mentioned how The Times made Fidel Castro. Most of us already knew this, but it's nice to hear it repeated through other media. The Times is in some kind of bubble, man. They've been detached from reality for decades.

I did not mean to suggest that journalists are not held accountable. We are, each and every day, by readers and others who are quick to let us know when we get something wrong. We are also accountable to the marketplace, financial and otherwise. If people do not like what we are doing, there are consequences to be paid. The most dire is probably the loss of our credibility.

How we should not be held accountable is with threats of imprisonment for doing what we are charged to do as journalists: Uncovering the truth about what the government is doing in our name and with our money.

Something we can do better as a profession is educating the public about how our constitutionally protected rights to publish what we publish protects the rights of all Americans. But the fact is, if you prosecute us for publishing stories the government doesn't like, we are all less free.

"Striking a balance" is a subjective notion. But if the government got to decide when a story was published, nothing would ever be published. A good journalist would want to publish everything they find out, but the record shows that journalists have held off on publishing stories when they determine that publishing might harm the nation's security.

One last thing — you aren't going to get me to defend Mathews. The record shows that at best, he was a fool. And at worst, he was Castro's Goebbels.

Marc, the fact is the government asked the Times NOT to publish the story - yet they did.

What bothers people is that this is only one more time the Times has done this. I agree with Val on one thing - the balance is not for the journalist to decide. Remember Geraldo Rivera? He almost got the troops he was talking about killed. Was he ever prosecuted? No.

There are things people need to know, and things people know but look the other way. This was a legal program - even people like Murtha are attacking the Times on this.

The balance is not for anyone to decide...if you are a journalist it's very simple - what serves the greater good, shutting up or blabbing? Most of the times its shutting up. What benefit is there from the Times publishing this? NONE....except of course for the terrorists.

Selflessness is a great quality that would behoove many journalists....it is when they want that Pulitzer or that recognition that they put themselves AHEAD of everyone else, including the American people.

I could argue that my constitutional right to safety has just been violated by the selfishness of the NYT.

Unfortunately, whether they loose credibility or not is not a big enough punishment. They need to know that acts have consequences.

marc,

One last thing — you aren't going to get me to defend Mathews. The record shows that at best, he was a fool. And at worst, he was Castro's Goebbels.

You made my point exactly. Who was it that Matthews was held accountable to?

Marc, I am sorely disappointed in your obvious naivete when it comes to your profession. Your opinion, such as it is, belies all manner of examples I can give you; Herbert Matthews and Cuba, Walter Duranty and the Soviet-made famine (including his vociferous defense of Stalin) are just two -- from the New York Times itself! I know you a learn a lot of BS in journalism school and that maybe some of it sticks to tour brain forever. But remember one salient fact: all of you have to be Americans first, and journalists second. Otherwise, you are nothing but the latest, sad, deluded, treasonous crop of Matthews and Durantys, that still roam the newsrooms in New York and LA.

BTW, Duranty won a Pulitzer that the NYT has refused to return -- knowing full well that it was "earned" by publishing lies. So much for accountabilty...

George,

That's my point exactly. There is NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

The NYT reporters write an article about how terrorists finance their operation and how the US government monitors same and the terrorists change their modus operandi. perhaps this change in MO leads to the abilkity for a terrorist cell in the US to acquire financing and in turn kill a bunch of Americans.

The NYT reporters then get reprimanded or fired. Big deal. Thats just a slap on the wrist, people are dead.

The NYT manages to publish as BS story about the government under the auspices of "protecting the public's civil rights" which in turn leads to dead Americans. Screw the rights of the dead, Iguess. And the NYT pats itself on the back as it attacked the government, caused a breach in security which led to dead americans and then gets to point the finger at the government because they arent doing enouight protect the public.

For the NYT, this is a win-win.

It's not about idealism and serving the public. ITS ABOUT SELLING NEWSPAPERS WHILE FURTHERING AN AGENDA.

Yup. BTW, you are writing in your usual superb, coherent manner. Are you holding back on the Margaritas or Piña Coladas there on the beach? If you are, shame on you!

The fact that there is this type of discussion going on here and elsewhere is proof that journalists are being held accountable.

What you don't want to do is to hold them "accountable" by having the government decide what they can or can't publish, or when they can publish it.

That would be bad not only for journalists, but for all Americans' freedom.

One last thing, if the government wants to convince a newspaper not to publish a particular story, the burden of proof is on them, not the newspaper, to show how it might be harmful. Maybe some editors are too quick to dismiss the government's case, but I would argue the government has a high standard to meet.

BTW, I have never taken a journalism class in my life — something that my critics have been quick to point out over the years. Still, I think that is a good thing, George, for reasons you suggest.

The fact that there is this type of discussion going on here and elsewhere is proof that journalists are being held accountable.

I dont wish to argue semantics with you, but I hardly think that conversations and criticisms can be construed as "accountability."

What you don't want to do is to hold them "accountable" by having the government decide what they can or can't publish, or when they can publish it.

The governmnet didnt decide what they should publish, but they urged them vehemently - not half hearted as Keller at the NYT said - to not publish the story including breaking down the porcedures and safety measures and assurances in place. Fact of the matter is that the NYT took it upon themselves to decide what was right for the American public. An American public that did not elect them to make such decisions for them.

One last thing, if the government wants to convince a newspaper not to publish a particular story, the burden of proof is on them, not the newspaper, to show how it might be harmful. Maybe some editors are too quick to dismiss the government's case, but I would argue the government has a high standard to meet.

Again, who are you to argue this? Who put you and your fellow journalists in charge of what the standard should be? Have you even read the letter for the Secretary of the Treasury to the NYT?

In this case, specifically, who put the NYT in charge of National Security issues? The very same NYT I might add, that published an editorial back in Sept of 2001 calling for the government to enact this procedure in FULL, for the sake of National Security.

Sorry Marc. I love ya man, but aint no way Im gonna give in on this one.

I concede no one "elected" editors to anything. But journalists do have a vital role to play in our democracy, which is why the First Amendment makes the media the only industry to enjoy constitutional protections. The Founders, many of whom had their own problems with the press, saw a free press as vital to the Republic, not just for the journalists but for all Americans.

Of course, that does not give us blanket immunity to publish without accountability when we get it wrong or when publishing is seen by some to be counter to the national interest. But on this one, the press did not get it wrong. As to whether it hurt the national interest, well, I guess that's the crux of the debate.

One final thing, why is the uproar so intense over this story? While I am glad the NYT and others published stories about warrantless wiretaps, the telephone records monitoring and other topics, I would concede those were potentially more harmful to national security than the story about the bank monitoring.

I just think the Bush administration and its allies are sick of the media and decided this would be the moment to ratchet up the media criticism by challenging the patriotism of editors and reporters. I think that is unfortunate, and more than a little bit scary.

One final, final thing: I love ya, too, Val, and appreciate the opportunity to explore these issues on here. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind per se, just trying to explain, and defend, why the media does what it does, and why I think it is so vital.

I only wish Abraham Lincoln were in office 'cause he'd do the right thing to those who leaked information and put our country at risk. (Hint: it would not be a slap on the wrist.)

Ahem. I love you both. Well the three of you since George is here too.

I side with Val on this one, while I still understand your point Marc. However, both of you seemm to be forgetting something I mentioned earlier.

IMHO this is not 100% agenda pushing. This is self absorbed, holier than God, Woodward and Bernsteing wannabe's who are 100% self serving and pulitzer seeking.

Marc to answer your question of why the uproar - perhaps b/c the NYT published it with a hint of wiretapping while this time everything the govt was doing was 100% legal. So what's the story here? Why publish something that is legally approved - that can do more harm than good?

And to take away a bit of blame from the NYT - they ran the story but someone leaked it. I'd find that leak and process him too.

Ahhh, the love. I'm... I'm... I'm going to lunch.

Hello! WE ARE AT WAR WITH TERRORIST!!! We don’t need to aid and abbett them. It is THEY who are the enemy, not the BUSH administration. Because of the New York Times’ own personal agenda –and their hatred for George W. Bush- the world IS at risk. It is due to the terrorist’s ignorance on how the money trail is followed that the men suspected of 2002 Bali Nightclub bombings (which by the way killed over 200 people) were arrested. Jemaah Islamiyah, the regional terrorist group IS being financed by al-Qaeda. The money trail led authorities to the 30 men invoved in the bombing. Now, thanks to the NYT those fighting terrorism will have a very DIFFICULT task. By the way, this is an INTERNATIONAL effort not just the UNITED STATES. I’m certain that all those countries fighting TERRORISM are not very happy about this turn of events.

In the “good old days” during times of WAR, journalists were American first and journalists second. The safety of American citizens came first. This happened during the Civil War, the War of 1812, both World Wars and the Korean War. It all went to hell in a hand basket during and after Vietnam.

On the same subject….

The New York Times has had a long and sordid past. Walter Duranty AKA “Stalin’s Journalist,” was the Time’s Moscow correspondent in Russia in the 1930s. As a devoted admirer of “dear Uncle Joe” he glorified Stalin presenting him as a true democratic leader. Thanks to his reporting the New York Times won its first Pulitzer Price in 1932. Today Mr. Durante is known word wide as one of the greatest liars of journalism.

In 1959 Time’s correspondent Herbert L. Matthews single-handedly created the myth of Fidel Castro. In the 1950s the New York Times, in order to promote their classified ads, came up with the slogan “I got my job through the New York Times.” As a form of satire, the National Review, after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, showed Fidel Castro on its cover with the slogan superimposed over his face.

Wilfred G. Burchett, free lance journalist and close friend of the North Vietnamese. In the 1960s New York Times journalist Harrison Salisbury repeated false data handed to him by self-confessed Vietnam correspondent Burchett. In the 1950s Harrison Salisbury ran pro-Castro report sent to him by Herbert Matthews.

The same deceptive techniques of distortion and manipulation continue to be used by the New York Times today.

The New York Times is just as bad as Mike Wallace, who 'proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush. “Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?', moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested. Without hesitating, Wallace responded: 'No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter.' When Brent Scrowcroft, the then-future National Security Adviser, argued that 'you're Americans first, and you're journalists second,' Wallace was mystified by the concept, wondering 'what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by [the imaginary] North Kosanese on American soldiers?'"

http://newsbusters.org/node/4479

They're not Americans first. They're just pathetic. They don't deserve the freedoms men and women have died for. They don't get it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: