AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > July > 22 > Entry
Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I recently re-watched the largely true-to-life movie Thirteen Days, about the JFK White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was freshly struck by how close we came to global holocaust, and how overwhelming was the responsibility that rested on the few exhausted insiders that knew the whole story. I realized: in the age of terrorism, this must be what every President feels like… every day in office.
I was also struck that decades ago, Presidents didn’t have so much worry about a few American papers actively fighting for the other side. In 1962, when word of the crisis was about to leak, President Kennedy actually told the New York Times of the coming blockade, but requested a 24-hour hold on the story, since advance warning would eliminate the only non-violent solution. Washington bureau chief Scotty Reston agreed to the “reasonable request,” because it clearly protected Americans.
It is tragically ironic that today’s New York Times appears to revel in endangering Americans, by revealing details of secret terrorism-fighting programs. The most recent example, of course, was the Times’ decision to expose (and thus emasculate) an essential, legal program used for tracking terrorist finances.
That story signaled the end of our ability to track and stop the plots of certain high-level terrorist financiers. How will the Times feel if those financiers end up killing 3,000 more Americans because their reporting allowed them to evade capture? As conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell said in an interview, “When you consider that leaders across the ideological divide told the New York Times that printing the story would do grave harm to our nation, one has to conclude that the paper did this knowing and not caring about the damage it was doing to the country.”
Journalists have always had a serious responsibility to the “public interest,” but today, that means more than “the public’s right to know.” Sometimes, the public interest goes far deeper and requires a humility and self-restraint that seems sorely lacking in a few media outlets that should be setting the standard. The vast majority of news organizations understand wise restraint; I pray more Americans won’t have to die before the others see the light.
Rebuttal
Shaunti paints quite the seditious picture. It is meant to sway us with emotional, patriotic pleas, much like our current administration does when it points fingers at the press and diverts attention away from government’s own misdeeds.
Yes. This is an issue about national security: the security of individual privacy our government carelessly jeopardized when it launched a banking surveillance program without filing the proper paperwork, a step meant to protect citizens from government abuse.
But this fact is sadly overlooked. And the spin that this was a secret terrorist tracking program rendered useless by The New York Times is astonishing.
“Subsequent reporting by Washington Post’s Walter Pincus and others has demonstrated that there was nothing ‘secret’ about this project. The administration had made comments about their bank account tracking initiatives for the last several years,” explains Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
“News organizations take the responsibility to protect national security very seriously and only publish stories that do not place U.S. interests at imminent risk.”
News organizations also check governmental abuses and protect American citizens. A government that ignores the constitutional rights of its own citizens can’t simply cry wolf and spin a tale about specious national security concerns.
“Any terrorist with even the slightest grasp of how money moves around the world would have to know his or her transactions were being tracked,” adds Dalglish. “I think the New York Times was singled out for criticism because the administration is still ticked off about the story on warrantless eavesdropping from last December.”
And if Dalglish is wrong, if our administration wasn’t lashing out, we’re still left with the elephant in the room: Why could a reporter breach national security? This speaks volumes about our lack of it. So perhaps national security was never really the issue.
Because if it was an issue, our government could have blocked its publication, reported Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune. It was within their legal right to stop its publication. But it’s easier hold the line and insist that any questioning of the administration’s tactics in its war on terrorism means the questioner is unpatriotic at least, and treasonous at worst.
Comments
By Mamoru of Canton
July 24, 2006 07:49 AM | Link to this
It has been pointed out that this is not a war because the average American is not making any sacrifices. I disagree, Americans (not all, but including this one) are turning the other eye when it comes to the Right of Privacy.
A sacrifice need not be material in order to make
Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?
To me, during a time of war, it boils down to this. Dose the Public’s Right to Know, out weigh, the The Public’s Right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In a time of war, where we have enemies with in, I will have to say no.
One innocent life lost, to score the big story, is one life too many.
Congress complains that they are never told anything, yet we have Congress members that leak top secret information. Thats why Congress was cut off right after the beginning of the war.
If we were not at war I would have to agree with Diane, seeing that our country has enemies with in working to cause grievous injury to my family, friends, neighbor, and country man. The press needs to sit back and let this war be fought out to its conclusion.
Mamoru of Canton
By Will Jones
July 24, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
“Restrain their reporting?”
“The elephant in the room,” of which MSM’s reporters are restrained to the point of moronic and treasonous obliviousness, is the incontrovertible, and easily obtained, fact that 9-11 was committed by Bush et al.
“New Pearl Harbor,” by PhD Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin breaks it down sedulously…or if one wishes to stick to the internet and save the few dollars for the book one can go here
to read the following official government 1st person witness to Cheney’s given order to “stand down” to allow the obvious missile to hit the Pentagon as the “David Copperfield” jet plane was seconds later witnessed flying over Capitol Hill.
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Well, at the time I didn’t know what all that meant. And —
MR. HAMILTON: The flight you’re referring to is the —
MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.
MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
Additionally one motivated by intelligent patriotism or spiritual righteousness might take an hour and twenty-one minutes to watch “Loose Change 2nd Edition” by clicking ]here](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=Loose+Change+second+edition).
The only issue, besides adjudicating the overt treason that has once more lead us to false war, is the appropriate “regard” The People should adopt for the “publishers” “employing” such incompetents as reporters.
By Archie
July 24, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
“It is tragically ironic that today’s New York Times appears to revel in endangering Americans, by revealing details of secret terrorism-fighting programs. The most recent example, of course, was the Times’ decision to expose (and thus emasculate) an essential, legal program used for tracking terrorist finances.”
Shanti has gone back to being a ditto-head for the Bush administration and she has suspended her good sense. If a reporter has secret information then the information is not secret. Diane is right that the media has to let Americans know when their privacy rights are being violated. Whoever leaked this information about the program is who the administration should have a problem with but then it would be like pointing the finger back at the administration.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
If the government is doing things that are illegal or unconstitutional in any way, then the press not only should tell the public, I would say they have an obligation to do so.
There are instances in which the press should be mindful of what it is reporting, but not if the rights of law-abiding citizens are being trampled.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
It depends on what kind of reporting we’re talking about.
IMO they have an ethical duty to report on actions by the government that a reasonable person would construe as…well…shady, if not outright illegal. Considering this administrations propensity for secrecy and it’s impatience with conforming to the law as it’s written…I think that without the “free press” we-the-people would have absolutely no idea that our government was shaving the edges from our civil rights. The Bushies have clearly dispensed with the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” and habeus corpus protections, not to mention their assault on my right to be secure in be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable (and un-warrented) searches and seizures. When my government is determined to abrogate the laws and protections that help make this country as great as it is…dam right that journalists should shout it from the front page, war or no. After all, if we allow the dismantling of the Bill-of-Right and Constitutional checks-an-balances…then what exactly would we be protecting? Certainly not the America that I grew up in.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Was it actually news that there was a US government program tracking finances? The terrorists sure knew it, before the NYTimes story. So it is really more about this administration’s need to control all disseminated information/spin, that is more what the uproar over the NYTimes ‘news’ article was all about.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
Good movie though, Thirteen Days.
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
“If a reporter has secret information then the information is not secret. Diane is right that the media has to let Americans know when their privacy rights are being violated. Whoever leaked this information about the program is who the administration should have a problem with but then it would be like pointing the finger back at the administration.”
-Archie…so your saying that as long as a reporter can get thier hands on the information then they have no obligation to consider national security? true, if a reporter has the information then its technically not “secret” - but it certianly can still be sensitive information that can have a significant effect on the gov’ts ability to protect the country. the administration should find and punish whoever leaked this information, but i don’t think the reporter get a free pass just because the info was leaked.
“If the government is doing things that are illegal or unconstitutional in any way, then the press not only should tell the public, I would say they have an obligation to do so.”
-GOB…with respect to the Times story about the tracking of finances, the story didn’t allege anything illegal or unconstitutional was taking place. in fact, right after 9/11 the Times ran a story blaming the Bush administration for not have a program in place to track the terrorists finances - it was only when they discovered that the administration did have such a program that they decided it wasn’t a good idea. this story wasn’t to keep the gov’t in check or protect peoples rights. it was an attempt portray the administration in a negative light, regardless of the consequences.
By Brian Curtis
July 24, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
It’s typical of the current far right (and Shaunti, their spokesmodel) to try to couch everything in emotional and faux-patriotic terms when logic fails, i.e., “Reporting on what the government does is treason… the press is siding with the enemies of America,” and so on.
But Diane has the right of it. The greatest danger to our freedoms is never external enemies like terrorists; it’s letting our own government get away without public scrutiny and accountability.
The purpose of the press is to let the public know what our government is up to; journalistic ethics come into play when revealing specific information might endanger American lives or national security, and there’s a long history of cases and hearings dealing with how to walk that fine line.
But so far, the adminstration has made no attempt to censure or charge the Times for its story, or to stop its publishing. Why? Because they did nothing wrong. Instead, knowing they have no legal recourse, the White House response has been to unleash its pet media hacks to cry “treason” and discourage any further attempts at actual reporting.
“The press needs to sit back and let the government ‘do its job’?” HE-LL NO. The press is on the side of truth, and if the government is inconvenienced by that—-well, whose fault is that? It’s the attempt to suppress journalism that’s the REAL treason here.
The current Republican argument is that
Anything the Bush administration does “in a time of war” is, by definition, in the public interest;
Therefore, anyone who questions or tries to hold the administration accountable for its acts is “working for the enemy;” so,
Do your patriotic duty and stop asking questions. At least until the current emergency is over.
Unfortunately, Americans are smarter than that; we’re not falling for this garbage any more. Silence is never in the public interest, and Mamoru is 100% wrong: our right to know is FAR more important than our safety, for the same reason we send soldier to fight and die for our freedoms.
Because the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives. If you meet any right-wing nutjob who disagrees with THAT core belief, then you’ll know you’re talking to a treasonous coward… and they’re a much bigger threat to America than accurate journalism OR hijackers could ever be.
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
“Was it actually news that there was a US government program tracking finances? The terrorists sure knew it, before the NYTimes story.”
-Chilao…it wasn’t news that the government had a program in place in an attempt to track terrorists finances. what was news was the extent of cooperation the u.s. was recieving from banks and other countries around the world - that is the info that was exposed by the nyt article. as a result of the article, terrorists now know exactly how far of a reach the program had - and i say had, b/c after this story came to light several banks and countries discontinued thier cooperation with the u.s.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Kyle - Like Chilao said, who didnt know this was already happening? After 9/11, they administration was constantly talking about how they were freezing assets of one group or another because they were suspected of either being terrorist, or supporting them. That sort of program would be difficult to pull off without tracking their finances.
My comments were in more general terms, but at the same time, like Mara said, the current administration has set themselves up for this sort of treatment in the press. If they werent so secrative about just about all of their programs, they might not look like they had so much to hide, which as we are finding out, is quite a lot.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
Kyle - the administration should find and punish whoever leaked this information, but i don’t think the reporter get a free pass just because the info was leaked
what do you think about the administration “leaking” sensitive information which they have secretly declassified in order to stay just barely on the side of legality?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
My comments were in more general terms, but at the same time, like Mara said, the current administration has set themselves up for this sort of treatment in the press. If they werent so secrative about just about all of their programs, they might not look like they had so much to hide, which as we are finding out, is quite a lot.
This, along with Brian Curtis, pretty much sums it up as far as I’m concerned. The press is absolutely responsible for keeping our leaders accountable to the public. Every story that is critical of the Bush Misadministration is immediately attacked by the right-wing propaganda machine as unpatriotic, seditious, and treasonous. We’ve even gone so far as to make non-binding referendums attacking journalists for doing the very thing the Founding Fathers intended for them to do.
Unfortunately, the Islamic extremists may have accomplished their goals more completely than they realized. Every month that goes by, this country looks less and less like the great nation it should be, and looks more and more like the kind of nation they would want it to be.
Just as a sidebar, any money wire transaction over $10,000 is reported to the government as a matter of course. Anyone with the knowledge and access required to move large amounts of money around would know that transactions are already subject to scrutiny. Also, the editor of the Times has stated many times that he kills any story that he believes truly represents a danger to US forces or citizens, even though those stories may represent front-page material.
But hey - we don’t have to believe that, do we. Why should we believe that the editor-in-chief of the most reputable newspaper in the US and one of the most reputable in the English-speaking world would be anything other than a partisan hack? Oh right, ‘cause it’s easier to dismiss unpleasant truths with claims of “the liberal media”.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
Because the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives
Well said Brian.
Kyle - this story wasn’t to keep the gov’t in check or protect peoples rights
And you know this how? When any entity goes trawling through huge databases, how do you know whether or not rights are being violated? After all, according to the original article “Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.” Rifling through my financial information without cause to suspect me of any wrongdoing…what journalist worth his salt wouldn’t wonder if that was the sum of the program?
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
And this from today’s AJC:
“President Bush’s penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report being released today in Washington. The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws. The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds”
Trusting one’s government is difficult at best, but this Administration raises the bar for maintaining our trust. Their actions give the impression that they approach our laws and Constitutional protections as suggestions. I recognize that in times of war things do need to operate a bit differently, but we’re not technically at war since only Congress can declare one and second the administration chooses to do their own thing (example…not going to the special court for warrants (even after the fact) to spy on phone calls, etc.
I think the criticism of the NY Times is a red herring or attempt to discredit them through the usual name calling tactics (“Unpatriotic”,”UnAmerican”, etc). Financial tracking in today’s electronic banking world is a requirement to settle items and create audits for accounting purposes. It’s not rocket science to realize that it’s easy to figure out where the money went.
By Jack
July 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
any money wire transaction over $10,000 Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
Here, here to BC for the principles of democracy are more valuable than our very lives What is frightening is that in some cases our leaders almost seem to be Manchurian candidates seeing as how they are slowing becoming more like the totalitarian regimes they claim to hate.
Osama threatened to bleed us dry and the Islamic terrorists are doing that quite successfully by continuing to foment unrest in the world which is keeping oil prices high. Money is flowing into the reason like water over Niagra Falls. And our economy is starting to feel the affects of the increases. Prices are rising across the board due to increased transportation costs. That combined with the increased cost of fuel could threaten to push us into recession. We’re closer than most people realize especially given the amount of debt most people are carrying. Interest rates are being raised to stem inflationary fears, but the rising rates are hitting the same Americans who are seeing prices rise in the consumer markets.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
Yeah, we should just get rid of all of them. I mean, we do have Tony Snow telling us everything we really need to know everyday…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Members of the media are vulture scum. If it bleeds, it leads. “Tell me Mr. Jones, thoughts were going through your head when you found out your wife was bruatlly raped and murdered?” Typical vulture scum.
You aren’t paying attention to the real journalists, then. Either that or the right-wing anti-journalism brainwashing has worked on you. Far more easy to manipulate you if immediately distrust the traditional source of challenging information.
We aren’t talking about TV News crews or tabloid reporters. REAL journalists don’t ask idiotic questions like your example above. There are actually many excellent, reputable papers out there that wouldn’t dream of sullying their duty with such garbage. But hey - once again, it’s easier to believe the “liberal media” or “vulture scum” nonsense that it is to deal with complex issues.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
any money wire transaction over $10,000 Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
Yeah, yeah - sorry, my company deals in transfers of money and wire transactions, so I didn’t realize that deposits were also subject to the same reporting. :-)
By lozen
July 24, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
As usual Brian Curtis gets to the heart of this matter. I applaud those reporters who really do their job under the threat of retaliation they face right now.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
don’t apologize to me. I simply wanted to make sure folks were aware that the reporting goes beyond wires.
my company deals in transfers of money and wire transactions You might be using my product lines if you initiate or upload wire batches to your bank through the web.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
I worked in banking/IT for four years, it is actually a Summation of all account activity for someone’s NAME,(regardless of the number of related accounts) so eight $2,000 transactions, for example, would trip to over $10,000 and it would be reviewed/questioned by an internal bank auditor, for potential reporting.
72John - I almost could not put The Handmaid’s Tale down, completed at least 2/3 over the weekend. Glad I saw the movie first, however.
lozen - I found a web-site that listed the EndofDays series. MAY check out later, desert-dweller doomsday books not exactly my thing. LOL
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
sounds like a Bahbah Waltas: “As you saw your kid swept away by the over-flowing river, being pulled under, drowning, tell us, how did that make you feel.”
By The72John
July 24, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
72John - I almost could not put The Handmaid’s Tale down, completed at least 2/3 over the weekend. Glad I saw the movie first, however.
Read Alias, Grace. It is my favorite Atwood.
By Archie
July 24, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Kyle I can’t respond too much today but I will say this if a reporter can get his/her hands on certain information then that information is not secure. I don’t think reporters should tell the world exactly where our soldiers are located and all the strategy that those soldiers will use but how would a reporter get such information? Also why should we trust this administration with financial records? We have already seen that this administration or politicians in general will use information to attack their detractors, so yes reporters need to seek and report the information that they receive. I do have a problem with reporters wanting to know exactly where our soldiers are located on the battleground but then what official would divulge such information? No matter how you cut it you have to question the person who divulged the information.
The topic question is not one for a yes or no answer. So my answer is sometimes a reporter should restrain her reporting. A better question is how do reporters get such sensitive information?
By renee
July 24, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Hi everyone!!!
I still had comments from last weeks subject that I did not get to post…but I’m moving on.
I think GOB said it best at 9:12. While remaining mindful of certain issues, other issues they definitely have a duty to report.
On a sidebar, is this Kaka thing a commercial or a subliminal message??? lol
By The72John
July 24, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I don’t think reporters should tell the world exactly where our soldiers are located and all the strategy that those soldiers will use but how would a reporter get such information?
Very true. HEY, AL-QAEDA GUY - there’s a SOLDIER BEHIND YOU! would be an inappropriate use of the power of the press, and any journalist worth his salt KNOWS that. But the Bush Bullies know that if they invoke fears of terrorist attacks and patriotic fervor whenever they press dares to make them accountable, that the oh-so-common man will jump on the bandwagon faster than you can say Woodward and Bernstein.
On a sidebar, is this Kaka thing a commercial or a subliminal message??? lol
Bot-spammer. Starting to get REALLY annoying.
Anyone know why they cut us off last week, btw?
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Chileo, glad to hear you’re reading A Handmaid’s Tale. It is one of the most chilling novels I’ve ever read. She’s going to be on Bill Moyers’ Faith and Reason which airs on Channel 8 Sunday at 3:00pm. (I think someone was determined to bury Moyers’ show this time!) And I just got an email (is this synchronicity or what?): she’ll be speaking at Emory on Sept. 7 and signing her new book.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why the blog went down last week 72John. I emailed them, finally, on Friday and within hours it was up again. Surely I’m not the only one though. I know there are several of you just as addicted as I am!
By lozen
July 24, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
What was the name of the book written by a Washington security insider about how the administration used 9/11 as the excuse to start their long-wanted and long-planned war on Saddam?
By Mara
July 24, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
HA! lozen I reported in on Thursday (though they didn’t get back to me til Friday).
Their IT guy said that he had no problem getting the site and “post” box to come up. I asked him if had tried a test post, which of course he hadn’t…couple hours later it was fixed. (shrug) Now about this Kaka-bot…surely they could be doing something about that annoyance.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
You would think, Mara….
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen - thanks for the heads up, I will watch or tape. I got some of Ann Provoost a few weeks ago (on F&R), but have not read her stuff, she just had some intawestin’ stuff to say. it was about Noah’s ark.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
even when you got that ‘posts not allowed’ message, and then tried again, from the error page, it still errored. Oh, well, mine got lost, something about ‘people must be outta town’, a polite ‘out to lunch’ euphemism. LOL
it is AnnE Provoost, not Ann.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
I’m answering my own question with Amazon. There are so many books about the Bush administation and their mistakes in foreign policy and national security. This is just one:
Imperial Hubris A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.
In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.
In his book, titled “Imperial Hubris,” he calls the Iraq invasion “an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
I missed the Noah’s Ark thing Chileo. I’m usually out in the middle of the day on Sundays and it’s hard to catch that show. I should tape it. Did she give the exact dimensions of the ark? Like Chuck?
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Prior to the Bush administration I would have almost agreed that journalist should refrain from disclosing issues of national security. But this administration classifies EVERYTHING as national security and has abused the civil liberties and violated the privacy of millions for very murky and questionable purposes. In the case of this administration the more flashlights the better. It seems that in this administration there are cockroaches in every corner. I am not sure if the Cheney energy meeting was kept secret due to nat. sec. reasons or executive privelege, but if there is a change of majority in the congress or the senate, this issue should be revisited, oil executives questioned under oath, the whole nine yards. That minutes of that meeting will probably tell us that invading Iraq was going to happen well before 9/11. That is Cheney fought so hard to keep it secret.
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Shaunti sez: Journalists have always had a serious responsibility to the “public interest,” but today, that means more than “the public’s right to know.”
Will somebody please go pull this clueless woman’s “journalist” card? Geez. Real journalists are few and far between these days. They are supposed to (1) Find and report FACTS, and (2) in the course of doing so, determine the difference between news, propaganda, gossip, and bullsh-t. Reporting what your government is doing with your money in your name is the most important thing she could do, but noooooooooo… not Shaunti!
BTW, can anyone access the archives to see what Shaunti wrote back in the late 90’s about the infamous stain on the blue dress? I’m still wondering why that was any of my business, but it must have been, right? I mean, no detail was left unreported! Whores.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Ben Franklin: “He who trades freedom for security deserves neither”.
Thomas Jefferson: “Given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”.
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Today’s American news media:
By lozen
July 24, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
If it were one democrat questioning the Bush administration that would be one thing. It is all kinds of insiders who question the Bush administration.
“It was in early 2004, the beginning of President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, that Lawrence Wilkerson first printed out a letter saying he wanted to quit as chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell.
“In essence it said, ‘Dear Mr. President, I find myself at variance with a majority of your foreign policies and even your domestic policies and therefore I respectfully submit my resignation,”’ Wilkerson recalled recently. But the letter remained in a desk drawer for the rest of Bush’s first term.
Nearly two years later, Wilkerson, a 60-year-old retired U.S. Army colonel, has finally completed his journey from insider to apostate.
Alone among those who surrounded Powell in the first term, he is speaking out critically, assailing the president as amateurish, especially compared to the first President Bush, and describing the administration as secretive, inept and courting disaster at home and abroad. Nor has he spared his former boss, who he says was overly preoccupied with “damage control” for policies set by others.
“What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made,” Wilkerson said in a well-publicized speech at the New America Foundation in October.
“And you’ve got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either,” he added.
Wilkerson has also focused attacks on the Bush administration for allegedly condoning torture and setting lax and ambiguous policies on treatment of detainees that inevitably led, he charges, to the scandal of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the black eye these gave to the army.”
By Rock On
July 24, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Everybody have fun tonight…everybody Wang Chung tonight!
Welcome to the jungle…we have fun and games..you can have anything you want but you better not take it from me.
Livin’ it up at the Hotel California…such a lonely place…
And I’ll see you on the dark side of the moon….
Shake your groove thing, shake your groove thing baby…
Purple rain…purple rain…this is what it sounds like when the doves cry…
I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain…blowin’ thru the jasmine in my mind…
Rikki don’t lose that number…it’s the only one you own…
Take it on the run baby…take it to the limit one more time…it’s another tequila sunrise…cause baby two out of three ain’t bad…
By Zack
July 24, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Ms. Glass,
I just read your introduction. My friend, it is YOU who consistently, if not always, ignores reason and instead makes appeals based on emotion and/or what you hope is true. You’re just a liberal media person; that says it all.
By Kaka84003
July 24, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this
Ben Franklin: “He who trades freedom for security deserves neither”.
Thomas Jefferson: “Given the choice between government and a free press, choose the press”.
The stock response to these quotes is: “But times have changed - it’s a different world!”. Of course, those who can most often be heard parroting this particular explanation are also those who claim that: “The US was founded as a Christian nation, and that should never change no matter how much the world has changed around us” or “The Constitution was written as the Founding Fathers wanted, and we should take an absolute strict interpretation of it”.
Obviously, these sorts believe the Founding Fathers were only immutable on those topics they WISH them to be immutable on. All other topics are open for debate.
It’s apparent that our FF’s had a strong understanding of what does and does not constitute good government (for the most part, at least - they can be forgiven for ascribing to the generally held beliefs of the day about race and gender) and spoke very clearly about the balance of powers and the accountability of our leaders. However, since the right-wingers are desperate for absolute power, that which constitutes good governance is not high on their priority list.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
The problem with the press is that they are leaning so far left that it’s a wonder they don’t just fall over!
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them. The last 4 letters of the word “democrats” sum it all up.
Just listen to them scream and yell (and those are the ones in office or running for office). They are the most unprofessional bunch the world has ever seen.
Love live the Republicans…
The media will never be free as long as the CIA/Jesuits control it though.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Exhibit A…
By GOB
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them.
Oh, the irony…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Democrats do not know how to show respect for authority-namely the President. They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them. The last 4 letters of the word “democrats” sum it all up.
Typical radio-shock-jock-brainwashed-schlock.
You understand that “We the People” have no responsibility to show any respect whatsoever for someone just because he is the President? You understand that the President should strive every single waking minute of his time in office earning our respect? Do a little research on Teddy Roosevelt and find out how a REAL President should behave.
A president deserves only that amount of respect that he earns by his actions. This President was gifted with a tremendous amount of the currency of trust after the days immediately following 9/11. He has squandered every cent of that currency by his blatant disregard for the Constitution, the world, International law, and basic human dignity. He deserves nothing but contempt from anyone who actually cares what this country stands for.
It’s ironic that you suggest Democrats beat up anyone who isn’t just like them. Seems to me that it’s the Conservatives who are doing their level-best to reduce the definition of “American” down to something as homogenized as a gallon of milk.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
What the heck. Let’s do away with the Reps and Dems and just have one party-the American party. Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!).
Give us back our Protestant country!!! Go back to Rome with all of your pedophile priests!!!
By kimberly
July 24, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
Hey Donnie, did you respectfully defend our previous President when the liberal media was cover… I mean, when they were exploiting the details of his private parts for fun and profit, and abeting the use of $70 million of your tax dollars to pull him away from his duties and into sleazy depositions with citizens who also did not respect his authority? Just curious.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
Donnie, I respectfully disagree. The press exists to get stories and get the most mileage they can from them. During the Clinto administration they went after Bill to the point that Hillary pitched many of her most famous tirades (remember the vast right wing conspiracy?) and Clinton himself became very distrustful of the press. The press wants to sell the story. And this administration gives them lots of ammo. It is it’s own worst enemy.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
What the heck. Let’s do away with the Reps and Dems and just have one party-the American party. Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!).
Sorry, we defeated the Nazis in World War II. No need to bring them back.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Oh, the irony…
Speaking of Irony, Dumm…er…Donnie first posted this:
They are like school yard bullies that like to beat the crap out of everybody different from them.
and THEN posted this:
Only good Christian men and women need apply. No atheists, no homosexuals and no Catholics (these last two obviously eliminate the priests of the pope!)
Hmmm…someone needs to reconsider who is the one beating up people who are different…
By Billy
July 24, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Actually it’s ANY deposit transaction over $10K. The only way to circumvent the system is to work solely in cash.
it is actually a Summation of all account activity for someone’s NAME,(regardless of the number of related accounts) so eight $2,000 transactions, for example, would trip to over $10,000 and it would be reviewed/questioned by an internal bank auditor, for potential reporting.
And that includes cash. When I was a teller, if someone, including any companies, were to make a deposit that included $10K in cash, I had to fill out a TCTR (Something Currency Transaction Report). And I think it might have been $5K for personal accounts. Businesses could apply for exemptions to the regulation, but I believe all personal accounts were subject to it.
The government knows where money goes. At least amounts that can be used for expensive operations.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Thank you Donnie for dropping in from vdare.com to
By GOB
July 24, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
I am thinking “Donnie” is just trying to stir things up a bit.
By Amelia
July 24, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
All Donnie left out of his “vision” for America is that only white anglos should apply as well. What chased me from the republican party was that it seems to be becoming a magnet for views such as his. I think that Donnie is the republican “base” that they are always talking about.
By Donnie
July 24, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
Yes Kimberly, I did. I don’t care who the President sleeps with. The whole thing was ridiculous! Clinton was just one of the few who got caught with his pants down.
By Celine
July 24, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Donnie-I agree, who cares who the president has sex with. As a former catholic I also agree with sending the pedophile priests back to Rome. However, I disagree with going to one govt party. That’s a little scarey…of course so is our current govt.
As to the press-I think the song “Dirty Laundry” says it best.
By Mara
July 24, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
speaking of bias in the media…there’s an interesting article in the Washington Post today (Two Views of the Same News Finds Opposite Bias) about just that and how subjective “bias” is.
They showed the same news clip to Pro-Arab and Pro-Israel groups and then polled them on their perceptions. It was interesting that the Pro-Arab group found that the clip was bias in support of Israel, but the Pro-Israel group thought it displayed a distinct anti-Israeli bias.
Evidently, the more partisan one is, the greater the liklihood that one finds an anti-whatever-you-support bias in non-partisan reporting. The more evenhanded the reporting, the greater the perception of bias.
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Clinton was just one of the few who got caught with his pants down. do we really know if his pants were down? maybe he just unzipped.
By Celine
July 24, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
I think he was speaking figuratively.
I don’t care if they were down, unzipped, half way down his a**e, wrapped around his ankles or on his head…none of our business. But Hilary is another story-she’s the one who was wronged, not the American public.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
I think he was speaking figuratively.
And I’m pretty sure that Net was just being a wiseas$ :-)
By Kaka76738
July 24, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn’t bother me. I haven’t been up to anything recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Why is this bot so bloody angst-ridden?
By Celine
July 24, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Who is Kaka and what kind of mind altering drugs is she on? Maybe it’s just another scientologist gone awry.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Who is Kaka and what kind of mind altering drugs is she on? Maybe it’s just another scientologist gone awry.
Spam-bot
By Jack
July 24, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Hi Sweet Thing. Way too busy today. Give um Hell.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Love live the Republicans
is that the new verion of Long live the Queen?
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Love live the Republicans
is that the new verion of Long live the Queen?
Probably closer to Heil Hitler…
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
I wonder if the religious fanatics who believe that Bush is divinely intended to be President view reporters and newspapers that criticize him to be heretical? Could it be that their obsession with labeling criticism as treason has more to do with their religious obsession that Bush is God’s chosen one, and less to do with patriotic fervor?
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
That is an interesting idea, but I think you might be giving that group a lot more intellectual credit than they deserve. I am not sure they have the ability to make that sort of logical leap.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
After all, if one rules by Divine Right, and then one is criticized, obviously the criticizer is defying God’s will and must therefore be punished.
Is that a quote from King George III?
LOL @ Heil. (my home a/c unit, I long-arm saluted and brownbooted/kicked out when they installed it. Poor choice of a name for an a/c unit supplier but think it is a proper surname)
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this
That is an interesting idea, but I think you might be giving that group a lot more intellectual credit than they deserve. I am not sure they have the ability to make that sort of logical leap.
Hey, if they can figure out the low-down on the dinosaur/Arc conundrum, they can do anything.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
I was wondering if Zack, Chuck and Randy got caught up in Lozen’s missed The Rapture last week, but since Zack has posted today……LOL
I would think Diane would be proud to be called Liberal Media but what do I know?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
I would think Diane would be proud to be called Liberal Media but what do I know?
I think Diane probably realizes that when someone says “liberal media!” it’s most probably because they aren’t articulate enough to say anything more substantive. It’s an easy cop-out for the intellectually shorted.
By GOB
July 24, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Good point John. They have been able to go back and actually determine the exact date on which the earth was created 6000 years ago. How can you argue with that kind of brain power?
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this
Chilao…Heil is a proper German surname. It was my mother’s maiden name.
John…Me?! Make a wiseas$ comment about something that really doesn’t amount to diddle when put into the greater context of important things in life?
Hey, if they can figure out the low-down on the dinosaur/Arc conundrum, they can do anything. Geez…maybe we should have them working on alternative fuels so we can break free of the middle east. I keep hearing about “The Power of Prayer” Why can’t they figure out how to convert that into electricity or to fuel a car?
By Jackson
July 24, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
You guys need to get your head out of…the sand. Gays scream “ACCEPTANCE” and “TOLERANCE” at the top of their lungs but then turn around and kick Christians every chance they get. Who’s being intolerant now? The gays “accept my sexual practices or ELSE” mantra is growing weary and tiresome on all the non-gay and non-atheist citizens of the United States.
You need to watch who you mock…namely God.
By Shelly B
July 24, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
But Jackson, without them who’d decorate our houses or cut our hair??? Sheesh…
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
Jackson? Uhhhh…how exactly is your comment germaine to the discussions at hand? If you don’t have anything nice to say…well I imagine you know the rest.
By The72John
July 24, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
You guys need to get your head out of…the sand. Gays scream “ACCEPTANCE” and “TOLERANCE” at the top of their lungs but then turn around and kick Christians every chance they get. Who’s being intolerant now? The gays “accept my sexual practices or ELSE” mantra is growing weary and tiresome on all the non-gay and non-atheist citizens of the United States.
That’s great, but I think you want a different blog…one that actually addresses…any…of the “topics” of your rant.
By Toad
July 24, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Then what does “heil, Hitler” mean? Hail?
By Eduardo
July 24, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
VIVA MCCAIN!!!! EL PRESIDENTE!!!
By lozen
July 24, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
We’re not mocking god, Jackson. We’re mocking stupidity and ignorance!
By NetBanker
July 24, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Shelley…let’s not forget rehab run down neighborhoods into liveable communities with rising property values.
Or the school taxes they pay even though most gays don’t have any kids in the school systems.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
Heil in German means many things but most likely Safe and Sound, saviour and salvation were the meanings part of the phrase Heil, Hitler.
stuff I just learned via an on-line German/English dictionary. I always thought it meant Hail as well.
By Chilao
July 24, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_salute
By Kyle
July 24, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
“Should journalists restrain their reporting in the interest of national security?”
-ok, so am i right to assume that most of you would say no to this week’s question? no matter what? or would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run?
By The72John
July 24, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
-ok, so am i right to assume that most of you would say no to this week’s question? no matter what? or would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run?
Funny, but I would assume that you would be able to extrapolate this information from our various discussions. Or…do you need black and white, yes-or-no answers?
By TramadoL49987
July 24, 2006 11:45 PM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to much today. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. Basically nothing seems worth bothering with. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I just don’t have anything to say right now. More or less nothing happening.
By Kaka87667
July 24, 2006 11:49 PM | Link to this
I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen. Whatever. Not much on my mind lately. I guess it doesn’t bother me.
By TramadoL47132
July 25, 2006 04:15 AM | Link to this
I haven’t been up to anything recently, but so it goes. Such is life. What can I say? Pretty much not much exciting going on to speak of. I haven’t gotten much done lately, but I don’t care.
By TramadoL74706
July 25, 2006 04:18 AM | Link to this
I just don’t have anything to say. Not that it matters. Eh. I’ve just been staying at home doing nothing, but I don’t care. That’s how it is.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 07:50 AM | Link to this
Check out unity08.com. There is a serious move afoot by some very in tune political operatives to field a viable 3rd party MODERATE presidential candidate in 08. After witnessing the fiasco since 2006, there are millions of Americans that are fed up and disgusted with the way the radical wings of both parties have hijacked our system. The loony left and religious right have held the rest of us hostage for too long. The winds of change are blowing folks and the time has come to overhaul our system. The two party system is broken and disfunctional. We can start fixing it in 08. No more lunatic left. No more religious right. No more neo-cons.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this
would you say that there can be legitimate national security concerns that journalists should consider when deceiding what stories to run
Sure there will be instances of legitimate national security concern, and when the government illustrates the probable damage, the media is pretty good about holding or even killing stories. However, it is the responsibility of the administration to prove to the journalist that national security would be imperiled. Just saying “oh, this could hurt the country” isn’t good enough, especially coming from the current group of shysters (saving the administration embarrassmentisn’t, IMO, a legitimate “national security” issue.) Also, if the government is engaged in what seems to be, to a reasonable person, illegal activities, for whatever reason, it is the duty of the free press to bring it before the American people. It is up to the government to show reason NOT to print, not the journalist to prove that they should.
You know, before this administration took power I actually trusted the government, mostly?
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 08:06 AM | Link to this
I heard that Mara. When anyone in the present administration says trust me…don’t. This is the most dishonest administration in the history of this nation. But hopefully, out of this will come a more aware populace.
By Archie
July 25, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this
To Mara and Amelia I agree with your last two posts. I won’t post much because you guys have covered my opinion pretty well.
By renee
July 25, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
Well said Mara.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
However, it is the responsibility of the administration to prove to the journalist that national security would be imperiled. Just saying “oh, this could hurt the country” isn’t good enough, especially coming from the current group of shysters (saving the administration embarrassmentisn’t, IMO, a legitimate “national security” issue.)
The Bush administration has brought this on itself by cloaking itself in secrecy, invoking National Security to protect something as innocuous as how often Dick Cheney has to change his Depends, and by blackballing any legitimate member of the press who dares to seem critical.
Just as an example, Helen Thomas, the redoubtable and bull-dogged member of the Press Corps who has been a (brilliant) thorn in the side of Presidents dating back to Nixon, is not given the chance to ask questions anymore because she has been critical of Bush in the past. This administration has wrapped itself inside a self-congratulatory Polyanna blanket since day one and refuses to either admit error or to tolerate those who dare to suggest that it is anything less than perfect.
I, for one, trust the journalistic ethics of the nation’s greatest papers far more than I trust the slimy, jingoistic, invoking-the-spectre-of-treason spin-doctoring of Bush and his cronies.
By The72John
July 25, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this
Amelia, I’m curious to know what you consider “looney left”. Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats. Most of them verge on being moderate Republicans when it comes down to a straight-line comparison of positions.
So, I’m just wondering what it is you define as fringe left?
By Renee
July 25, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Well said again John. I think what gets me is this administration feels as if they have the right, and are right to keep pertinent information away from the American people. The same people who put Bush in office, have the right to get honest information on what is going on. He, and his administration have been so dishonest from the beginning.
By Mara
July 25, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Thank you…thank you verra much :^)
Amelia - it’ll depend on what they mean by “moderate”. Take John Dean, for instance. As a Goldwater Republican he was once considered a right-wing conservative. Now, according to him, a Goldwater Republican would fall just slightly left of center. Look at Hillary Clinton. Most of her votes and views are fairly centrist, yet she’s considered an uber-liberal. Those of us who used to be slightly left or moderate left (fiscally conservative social liberals) are now considered…what’d you call us? Ah, the “looney left”.
I’ll keep an eye on Unity08, though. Who knows, they might actually be saying exactly what they mean…
By Mara
July 25, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
I forgot to add “(laughing cynically…)” to the end of my last post
By The72John
July 25, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this
I think what gets me is this administration feels as if they have the right, and are right to keep pertinent information away from the American people.
And don’t forget his crippling of the Freedom of Information act, his tremendous re-classification of documents that were once available through the correct channels to make them inaccessible, his changing of the rules on Presidential papers to cover up his father’s involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair (now THAT’S an affair that should have lead to an impeachment), etc.
It’s like watching the Soviet Polit Bureau and KGB at work sometimes.
By GOB
July 25, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this
It’s like watching the Soviet Polit Bureau and KGB at work sometimes.
Except they were a little more tactful…
By Lyrazel
July 25, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
Its odious when two blogger columnists compare themselves to being journalists just because they write for a newspaper. Neither woman has ever shown journalistic expertise, facts are rarely presented, both have resorted to using completely emotional prejudice to prove an argument. This is entertainment in a newspaper: a society column where our crack pot opinions are always more interesting than the articles. Because of OUR INVESTMENT OF TIME AS REPEAT BLOGGERS…more opinion columnists have gotten their own blogs at this paper. This is the fate of news/reporting. Its the Geraldo Effect: when your evening news lead story is who won The Apprentice or American Idol. Look at the front page of the AJC today, we are at war but headline news that Nicole Richie is too thin. Indeed there is ZERO information on the front page of the war in Iraq but a hidden link leads you to a page of articles that are only local interest stories. THIS is the state of the journalism today and its has been swallowed by entertainment!
Think of news stories you hear on TV. You hear at best 1.25 minutes of news about any one issue, be it war, taxes and controversy concerning our president. The headlines are flashy as the graphics but there is NO CONTENT. Once a reporter breaks a story only if it is newsworthy does it ever air, thus translated: if it keeps viewers, is entertaining in some way, or maybe a video of a bomb, stories of rape or murder in the city keeps people tuned in—stories about Iraq looses viewers. I am told people dont want to hear about Iraq anymore well, why are we still sending troops? Its like no one wants to be inconvenienced by news of Iraq thus not even the AJC keeps war news on its front page. Odd isnt it?
One of the reasons I have never believed any conspiracy theory is because I know too well the incapacity of most people in government to be able to keep a profound secret…thus it always leaks. Too many peons guarding the pot of gold. As to the broad category of national security I feel the average public citizen does not really care and is not interested in bills, legislation, wire tapping, and anything other than important issues unless it involves sex, movie stars or television or Cynthia McKinney hairdo, Janet Jacksons t*t and the fact Bush used the word s-h-i-t. Was any of it NEWS? How many DAYS was it headlined?
ONLY THE IRS actually functions in American government…everyone else just takes space…
By Kyle
July 25, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
-Mara…very good points in your 7:54 post, and i agree with this post for the most part - but are you saying that these points apply to the recent nyt article about the terrorists financing program? i may be wrong, but i don’t think any illegal activites were alleged in that article, and even the nyt, reasonable as they may be, didn’t accuse the administration of breaking any laws. it didn’t seem like this article was being run to protect our freedoms. i certianly agree with you that it is the administration’s responsibility to prove their case of national security concerns to the press, but would you agree that when no laws are being broken and no rights are being violated that the press should give the administration the benefit of the doubt in national security concerns?
“Amelia, I’m curious to know what you consider “looney left”. Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats. Most of them verge on being moderate Republicans when it comes down to a straight-line comparison of positions.”
-John…the name Howard Dean comes to mind, the head of the dnc
-i will conceed to you all that this administration has been entirely too secretive in many of its dealings which has in turn created many of its critics
By The72John
July 25, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
-John…the name Howard Dean comes to mind, the head of the dnc
Ok, you do like most knee-jerk Conservatives and name Howard Dean, but what about his positions makes him a fringe liberal? The guy is very flamboyant, and very vocal in his criticism of the Republican party, but then - Newt Gingrich was also loudly vocal in his criticism of the Democratic party back when he engineered the “Contract with America”.
What about Howard Dean makes him “Fringe”? Are you able to define those positions, or do you just rely on what talk radio and the talking heads of the GOP tell you is “Fringe”? I can certainly tell you what positions in the Religious Right I most object to, so why don’t you see if you can give me a substantive answer instead of a pat one.
By blablabla
July 25, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Look at Hillary Clinton. Most of her votes and views are fairly centrist, yet she’s considered an uber-liberal.
mara - don’t be fooled by her recent move toward the middle. you’re too smart for that. look at the policies she has espoused throughout her adult life. if those things are centrist in your mind, then by all means, pass the pipe.
Most Democrats with any seniority or position within the Party are decidedly not far-left Democrats.
lol. i thought friday was joke day.
By Amelia
July 25, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this