|
|
July 7, 2006
It's a Classified War"The institutional press, its fourth estate identity, and what Ben Bradlee called a 'holy profession' (because 'the pursuit of truth is a holy pursuit')— these are all modern inventions. Their legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans."Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror. Secret U.S. Program Tracks Global Bank Transfers. Since those headlines appeared on June 23 storm conditions have prevailed over the big castle of press authority. (Picture of the skies on June 28.) Some thoughts I hope you haven’t read everywhere else…
Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitimacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law. Whether the journalism is handcrafted and opinionated, or mass-produced and just-the-facts, the press isn’t trustable unless it is independent of the people in charge, and stands apart from interest groups competing for power. So independence is one means of securing legitimacy. Verification before publication is another. Transparency is a third. (Bill Keller in speeches: “As your math teacher might have said, we show our work.”)
The institutional press, its fourth estate identity, and what Ben Bradlee recently called “a holy profession” (because “the pursuit of truth is a holy pursuit…”)— these are all modern inventions. Their legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans that an independent and truthtelling press is vital to have as a check on government power, that its loss would be dangerous to their well being, and that professional journalists are doing the job well enough now to be that vital check. When there are people in politics who wish to change that opinion into… An independent and truthtelling press is vital but the press we have is not independent, it’s aligned with a liberal elite, and has become a threat to national security… they cannot be defeated by invoking the founders or reciting the Constitution. There have to be other ways of arguing the case and fighting back. Dana Priest of the Washington Post had a good starting point: “We are covering the war on terror, it’s a classified war.” Right. So what does the press do?
For example as Glenn Greenwald does: “Americans have abandoned this administration due to a long list of intense grievances with the President, and relentless, hysterical attacks on newspapers are highly unlikely to make them forget about those grievances… Ultimately, any institution or group which commits the Greatest Sin of opposing the President and imposing any limits on his powers will be subjected to this same treatment.”
Hugh Hewitt at the new boombox version of Townhall.com: “The picture that has emerged after a week is of two for-profit newspapers, eager for Pulitizers and aware of the other’s hunt for a headline, disregarding the urgent arguments of senior government officials and running a story on a program only dimly if at all understood by some (and by no stretch of the imagination all) terrorists, the result of which is to alert the world and even the below-average-intelligence killer of one key way the United States tracks them.” Let’s not pretend there can be any “debate” between those views. Storm conditions, yes. Discourse, no. (See Jack Shafer’s Bush or Keller?) Where I could see a debate emerging is over Priest’s observation: how should an independent press cover a classified war, or should it even try? If you think the press has no business digging into the government’s secret fight against terrorism, then what Dana Priest and others do is deeply illegitimate at the start. This is different than criticizing bad journalism or poor judgment.
“‘Trust us’ is not a winning argument in America — either with newspaper editors or the public at large,” he writes. But that is what the “holy profession” says, especially when it relies on confidential sources. (And “we show our work” is vacated.) It’s also the argument of the Administration. Trust us; we know things you don’t. No, we can’t show our work. But you understand why. It’s the nature of the war we’re in. David Ignatius sees the cracks: “We journalists usually try to argue that we have carefully weighed the pros and cons and believe that the public benefit of disclosure outweighs any potential harm. The problem is that we aren’t fully qualified to make those judgments. We make the best decisions we can, but they are based on limited knowledge.” That’s part of the problem. Hosting Meet the Press July 2, Andrea Mitchell turned to Bill Safire. A lot of people think the Times is “motivated by an anti-Bush animus,” she said. “Is The New York Times making a decision that is political rather than editorial?” What escapes her imagination is an editorial call that requires political judgment too. The decision to publish secrets is like that. It eludes the categories in current press think. My views: I find the decision to publish the SWIFT story defensible, but more arguable than the earlier Times story on the National Security Agency. (That’s where Nick Kristof is on it.) I don’t understand why the information in this post from CounterTerrorism Blog didn’t make it into the newspaper reporting. (Neither does CJR Daily.) Whether damage was done in the fight against terrorism I cannot say; that evidence is shrouded in darkness. (Read Dan Froomkin on how little has come to light.) Look, it’s a classified war. The grounds for judgment are often missing.
We know this because the Times does not print everything it knows about what the government is doing. Nor do the other national dailies. “The fact is, journalists regularly hold back information for national security reasons,” writes Kristof, “I recently withheld information at the request of the intelligence community about secret terrorist communications.” I believe that. People in government know it happens. But under storm conditions Heather MacDonald, writing in the Weekly Standard, can just say no. The Times, she says, is “so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.” (My italics.) If the Times decides not to publish, MacDonald would normally never know about it. In fact she has no idea which classified antiterror programs the Times found out about but did not reveal, and yet she went with her categorical statement (“by now it’s undeniable”) because it expressed the rage better. The rage may be real, her certainty about what the Times will do is faked. She doesn’t know enough to know. At his blog, The Horse’s Mouth, Greg Sargent explained the reactions since June 23 as a “diversionary tactic.” It’s “really all about reuniting a Republican base that’s cracking under multiple strains,” he said. It’s true that the New York Times makes for outstanding culture war theatre, but I think election-year tactics do not explain the severity of the storm. More is involved. There was one sentence that struck me as mighty revealing in the joint op-ed by Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, and Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times. They had just said that the conflict between the government’s “passion for secrecy” and the press’s drive to reveal things is not a recent development, which is true.
What has made the tension between press and government especially “clamorous” is that people in charge of the Bush White House decided on a strategy for rolling back the national press. It’s part of their reclamation and expansion of executive branch power. The aim is more freedom of action for the President and his powerful VP in going after the terror networks. As I have argued before, the Bush team changed the game on Washington journalists; and they knew they could get away with it. For some reason Keller and Baquet decided not to mention any of that. (Maybe they agree with Robert Kaiser: “What isn’t new here seems more significant than what is.”) At Yearly Kos in Las Vegas, Matt Bai, who covers politics for the New York Times Magazine, said he agreed with me that the game had been changed, and the press had not responded very well. David Remnick summed things up in this week’s New Yorker: “More than any other White House in history, Bush’s has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew.” And this week the base has responded with ugly escalations of its own. If those are the tactics what is the strategy? I think it begins with Dick Cheney’s conviction that executive power was eroded after Vietnam and Watergate, and ought to be taken back from the institutions that had grabbed too much for themselves— especially the oversight troops in Congress and the “gotcha” press. Another part of the puzzle was brought to my attention in 2004 by journalist Ron Suskind when he wrote of the “retreat from empiricism” in the governing style of George W. Bush. Attacks on the press are part of that. So is the distortion of intelligence. I just finished reading George Packer’s fine book, The Assassin’s Gate. Chapter to chapter, it follows the retreat from empiricism in the build-up to the Iraq war. The way that war came to us required victory over the facts on the ground, and over people in the government who had knowledge of what was likely to happen. The Bush forces won that victory. Executive privilege got exerted on the terrain of fact itself. That’s at stake too in the storming of the press castle. After Matter: Notes, reactions and links… Extra, extra! Journalism deans weigh in. It’s a rarity to see any sort of statement from the heads of major university-based journalism programs. But here is When in Doubt, Publish by Geoffrey Cowan of USC, Alex S. Jones of Harvard’s Kennedy School, John Lavine of Northwestern, Nicholas Lemann of Columbia, and Orville Schell of Berkeley (Washington Post, July 9). The opening lines: It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets. Schell is also a PressThink author, see his J-Schools Have to Get More Involved from July, 2005. This new piece is an example of what he meant. I’m glad the five men spoke up in a situation of urgency, and I would like to see more of it. I wish their statement added something—anything—to what has already been said in defense of the press, but alas…it does not. Maybe that’s too much to hope for with discourse by committee. Chrtistopher Hitchens isn’t a fan of the Dean’s statement. Neither is Tom Maguire of Just One Minute. See his A Teachable Moment. Tom thinks it would be fun to ask J-school students whether they agree with the Deans (and Alex Jones, who isn’t a Dean) that Robert Novak made the wrong decision to reveal Valerie Plame’s name. Jeff Jarvis, soon to be a J-school professor, isn’t satisfied: When and why to tell secrets. “I would have hoped for more from these people, in particular, more than just a defense of one American editor… academics should be able to better distance themselves from the fray of the moment and see where standards should lie.” Jarvis doesn’t care for the formula, “when in doubt, publish.” Neither do I. I don’t think it says anything. Hitchens also makes a crucial observation about this story: “If the House intelligence committee regards itself as being kept in the dark, what is the press to do but make the assumption that there is too little public information available rather than too much?” Letter to Romenesko from Tim Graham of the conservative-leaning Media Research Center (and a PressThink author): “The liberal media elite assumes the word of Bill Keller descends from Mount Olympus, and that no one can question his newspaper’s quite obvious political agenda.” William Powers in National Journal: “Watching the story play out, I’ve found myself hoping that reasonable heads don’t prevail on this one, that the conflict will get hotter and uglier and eventually wind up in court, a la Plame only more dramatic. Why? Because this country needs to have a great, big, loud, come-to-Jesus argument about the role of the press in a time of war, terror, and secrecy.” Jacon Weisberg, editor of Slate: “The New York Times, while acting in good faith, made the wrong call by printing the SWIFT story.” Kevin Baker in Harpers: Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies. Felicity Barringer of the New York Times in the comments: The current generation of extremists, like their predecessors, want to expropriate the meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the flag, making them the private preserve of their ideology or geopolitical perspective. That make it all the easier to label other perspectives obstructionist or treasonous. There’s more to her reply. Daniel Conover in the comments. Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law. Exactly. You can’t secure the press just by defending it. This is what the current post argues, as well. From the post-script to this essay added to the Huffington Post version: Also involved is a tendency noticed by Paul Krugman, who said this in a 2004 interview with Buzzflash: Editor & Publisher reported this July 5: “Managing Editor Paul Steiger of The Wall Street Journal and Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. of The Washington Post were both asked to be part of last weekend’s unique joint Op-Ed piece by the editors of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, which defended the publication of stories about the secret SWIFT bank monitoring program, E&P has learned. But each declined.” Recommended: Katrina Vanden Heuvel on The Nation, the New York Times, John F. Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs, and White House pressure not to publish. Dean Baquet of the LA Times: “Newspapers don’t know how to respond to critics.” (See also Patterico’s worries.) For the record, here’s the amazing, twisting, confounding and ultimately hilarious Wall Street Journal editorial denouncing the New York Times for running a story the Wall Street Journal also chased and published, and accusing publisher Arthur Sulzberger of wanting to obstruct the war on terror because he told college graduates that the world wasn’t supposed to turn out as it has. I’ve read it four times and still can’t make sense of it, especially this sentence: “We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.” Huh? But let Rachel Sklar have a go. Editorial Page editor Paul Gigot wouldn’t answer questions about it. I guess he thinks it speaks for itself! And here’s an email from a former WSJ staffer. The news staff of the Journal has been embarrassed many times before by the editorial page; but this was probably the worst. Indeed: “I’ve been here 16 years, and in my 16 years, this is something different,” political reporter Jackie Calmes told the New York Observer. Frank Rich decoding it: “The Journal editorial page was sending an unsubtle shot across the bow, warning those in the newsroom (and every other newsroom) that their patriotism would be impugned, as The Times’s had been, if they investigated administration conduct in wartime in ways that displeased the White House.” Also see this televised exchange with Marvin Kalb and Paul Gigot. Robert Kaiser, former managing editor of the Washington Post, before the current blow-up: I am not going to disclose Priest’s sources (I don’t know who they were), but I do know there were many of them. I know that she traveled extensively to report the story. I know that her article, like virtually all the best investigative reporting on sensitive subjects that we publish, was assembled like a Lego skyscraper, brick by brick. Often the sources who help reporters with this difficult task don’t even realize that they have contributed a brick or two to the construction. Typically, many of the sources who contribute know only a sliver of the story themselves. A good reporter such as Priest can spend weeks or months on a single story, looking for those bricks. Katharine Graham, then publisher of the Washington Post, in 1986: The terrorist has to communicate his own ruthlessness — his “stop-at-nothing” mentality — in order to achieve his goals. Media coverage is essential to his purpose. For those who want to see prosecutions, the guiding text is Gabriel Schoenfeld, Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act? (Commentary Magazine, March, 2006)
Posted by Jay Rosen at July 7, 2006 1:08 AM
Comments
Jay, Here's another part that mystifies me. I can't help seeing the press and the Cheney administration as two boxers in a ring. Cheney has cut the press over both eyes with a razor blade inside his glove, he's hit them below the belt, he's stepped on and crushed their toes, and he has them backed up against the buckles in a corner. The press keeps responding like it was just walking down the street minding its own business and can't understand why it keeps getting hit. After each shot to the groin, it keeps muttering, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me." This looks like weakeness to Cheney, so he just hits harder. Cheney's right. It is weakness. The press's ombudsman says, "Yesterday, Mr. Cheney publicly announced that he violently disagrees with us. We're very sorry. We'll try to do better next time. From now on, we'll try to agree with Mr. Cheney whenever grammatically possible instead of just most of the time like before." Every once in a while a non-right-wing blogger says, "You know, isn't it about time you considered putting your hands up? Maybe even punching back once in a while? Have you noticed your bloody and staggering on the ropes and Cheney just keeps kicking you in the balls? He just told Rush the other day that, given the chance, he'd shoot you in the face and dance on your grave. His buddy just posted your home address and phone number on his website with directions to your house including convenient gunshops in your area and their ammo prices. The press: Why do you hate my friend Cheney? Shut up! Can't you see I need to get along with him to do my job? Besides, I can't have a settled opinion about Mr. Cheney and his friends, I'm a journalist. I may have to investigate you for saying such disrespectful things about a major American political figure. At the very least, you clearly don't understand the responsibilites of a serious, professional journalist. non-right-wing-bloggers: You might like to think of yourself as a journalist, but from here you just look like a defenseless moron. Doesn't it bother you when Cheney and friends say they want you dead day after day? If you can't tell when someone wants you dead, you can't be much of an investigator, can you? Don't come crying to me when you fall bleeding on the ground. The press: Damn left-blogger barbarians! I may have to file for a restraining order on reality. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 5:12 AM | Permalink The Bush administration's interpretation of the US constitution is veering perilously close to the comic territory of Catch-22. One of their latest legislative proposals conceded to critics that US citizens be granted the right to a court hearing regarding possible warrantless wiretaps, but only on the condition that those who file suit can demonstrate they have in fact been the target of a warrantless wiretap, a standing that no civilian could ever meet as that information is classified. In effect, the very unilateral police state classification system that led to the complaint in the first place is supposed to constitute a separate, valid obstacle to legally filing under the proposed statute. Nice. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 5:34 AM | Permalink Mr. Cheney feels that the power of the Executive branch was eroded post Watergate and Vietnam. Might the Bush administration be trying to recapture the pre 1960s power held by prior administrations. There were oversight committees pre 1960. What is new is news 24/7 on a myriad of sites, talk radio, cable news and opinion shows ad nauseum. The newspapers are always behind the cycle as they update q24 hours. Hence the need for "gotcha". Every time the NY and LA papers find themselves painted into a corner more Red Staters(and some Blue Staters) join the Republicans. Some of us who were children in WW2 still adhere to the slogan "loose lips sink ships" Posted by: Richard Siegel at July 7, 2006 7:21 AM | Permalink IMHO, the Times overplayed the SWIFT story.... it comes as no surprise to anyone that banking records were being examined, and the real story was the lack of any Congressional oversight of the program. It was merely a front page, below the fold story, but the Times promoted it as if it was as significant as Dana Priest's WP story on NSA wiretapping..... Of course, the Times exaggeration of the significance of the story is no excuse for the insanity that is coming from right-wingers. The anti-Times crusade is so organized it has the feeling of a "Two Minute Hate"... only less rational. Jay, what the NYT, the LAT and the WSJ reported was neither secret nor harmful in the "war on terrorism." Posted by: Brigitte Nacos at July 7, 2006 9:03 AM | Permalink Paul, you meant Priest's prisons story, or the Times' NSA story? Is it overplayed? It's a legitimate scoop when they have a lot more details (but not arguably operational details) about the banking program, and the effectiveness of it. (No arrests disclosed since 2003, so maybe terrorists caught on.) It was the best story of that day? I didn't see the deadtree edition to judge the size of the headline or placement of the story. But it's a strange argument to make that Lead Story X is as significant as previous Story Y. There is a lead story every day in the paper. One thing rarely brought up in the attack on the Times is when someone (the WH?) leaked to the Times about the Al Qaeda computer guy in the fall of 04. That leak was far more damaging. And where was the cry of treason then? Jay, How does the "production of innocence" frame this debate? Is part of the storm the out-of-position press as neutral, innocent, disinterested third-party (or fourth estate)? fairness/balance = the professional goal for the product How does the out-of-position press affect the balance-of-power? What appears to be a struggle between the White House and the press is always a triangular relationship among journalists, the Administration and the public. Each leg—the President and the American people, the White House and the press, the press and the public—counts. If we look at two sides without reckoning with the third we’ll always go wrong. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 10:06 AM | Permalink Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law. Granted. Now, given the emerging rules, relationships and capabilities of 21st century media, how do we approach solving this problem? How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism? I've been a loyal PressThink reader since December 2004, and I'm beginning to think that this is the central theme interwoven through every thread here. To secure is not the same thing as to defend. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 7, 2006 10:19 AM | Permalink Daniel Conover: "How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?" Trust? At the Newspaper Association of America's convention, Washington Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser lamented during a panel discussion of the pros and cons of news councils, "We've got a real problem in American newspapers. A lot of people don't trust us."Trouble at Times Can Be Helpful in the Long Run A few years ago an audience of Twin Cities journalists heard an outstanding colleague -- Geneva Overholser, former editor of the Des Moines Register and former ombudsman of the Washington Post -- say something that made their collective jaw drop. Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over (scroll down to Not sovereign) Big Notion death was a theme in journalism in 2004, coming not from the margins but the middle. Geneva Overholser of the Missouri School of Journalism, former editor of the Des Moines Register, former ombudsman of the Washington Post, said it:Understanding Media WatchdogsThis was the year when it finally became unmistakably clear that objectivity has outlived its usefulness as an ethical touchstone for journalism. The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional.If objectivity, once the "ethical touchstone for journalism," has finally collapsed, then we have conditions resembling intellectual crisis in the mainstream press. Steve Lovelady, managing editor of Campaigndesk.org, and a former editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, agreed that the press in 2004 "was hopelessly hobbled by some of its own outdated conventions and frameworks." Despite these concerns, news councils offer a much-needed opportunity for the public to interact with and offer criticism of the media, Geneva Overholser, former Washington Post ombudsman now on faculty at the University of Missouri, said in a Columbia Journalism Review article last February. "We can ill afford to pass up any decent opportunity to hold ourselves accountable, and to help the public understand all that we do to uphold our principles and to get our facts straight," Overholser said. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 11:40 AM | Permalink Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink Tim: The way Overholser defines objectivity -- The way it is currently construed, "objectivity" makes the media easily manipulable by an executive branch intent on and adept at controlling the message. It produces a rigid orthodoxy, excluding voices beyond the narrowly conventional -- is not the same thing as objectivity of method. It is, rather, a confined and confining way of reporting and structuring a story: You get "both sides" of the story and present them as equally valid. For reasons that escape me even after 22 years in the business, that approach has become the default mode for presenting news. Problem is, it only works if 1) there are only two, diametrically opposing, sides of a story and 2) they are equally valid. Most stories don't meet those criteria, of course, yet we continue to act as if they do. Objectivity of method -- that is, pursuing facts, following "discipline of verification" -- is not out of style and probably never will be. To get back to the original subject of this post, one way we in the news media can continue to secure the legitimacy of journalism -- and although Dan Conover didn't phrase it in quite this way, I hope he would agree that doing so will be an ongoing, never-ending process -- is to adhere as strictly as possible to the discipline of verification. Another is to remember that, as Geneva Overholser observed, the First Amendment belongs to the people, not just to those of us who work in the news media. Accordingly, we need to keep constantly in mind that we are surrogates for the people in service of their need to keep an eye on what their government is doing. When we must explicitly invoke First Amendment rights, we should strive to ensure that we are doing so in service of First Amendment responsibilities. What does that mean? One example: In my shop, we almost never use anonymous sources because our readers have made very clear that they neither like them nor trust them, no matter what assurances we give them as to the truthworthiness of the source and the validity of the information. So we use them only when there's no other way to get certain important stories, knowing that there are some stories so important that we're going to have to get them no matter how pissed readers get at our methods. Even this minor example is one the White House press corps generally has not embraced, and I believe it's one reason they are neither as effective or as trusted as they could be. Jay: With due respect, you make a factual error in this piece. The Founding Fathers absolutely chose a free press to make those determinations. No one who has read the Constitutional debates and the Federalist Papers could doubt it. You mistake the idea of today's institutional press with the press the founders protected. The Founders chose to protect the press and speech regardless of what modernities infected it. Your error mars your otherwise fine piece. Posted by: Armando at July 7, 2006 2:50 PM | Permalink Once again we see how the powerful abuse the idea of capital T Truth in an age of multi-narratives. Those with the most to lose and the loudest voices will be more able to make their own truth into the public truth. The dualities inherited from the cold war battlegrounds supported that simpler version of The Truth, but as the world continuously splits into factions, it gets more and more difficult to talk about the issue. (as opposed to 'the truth') as we still rely on the true/false distinction to make sense of things. "How do you continue to secure the legitimacy of journalism?" Avoid the truth and stick to the narratives and the 'facts'. What the current US administration seems to be able to do is juggle dualiths that they strategically create in order to retain that capital T on truth. An intellectual bully who finds someone else on the playground to marginalize to create some room for themselves in the center. Somehow the media has to get out of that battle... Comedy central is seen as a local for news for that very reason... they don't allow themselves to be set up as an opponent of the adminstration. I don't really think its possible... or at least i can't imagine how it could be done. Posted by: dave cormier at July 7, 2006 3:16 PM | Permalink With all due respect, A., it's a difference in interpretation, not a "factual error" that causes me to think Safire mistaken to have spoken that way. I believe Safire believes the founders gave rights to the (professionalized) press that they did not give to the people-at-large. To me that is a losing argument, and not what they intended. Plus, as I wrote: "Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy." Tim: I think the production of innocence (an image of professional agendalessness...) is always involved when the castle (old press authority) explains itself. And yes, I still think you need a three-sided view to understand what's going on with the press and the White House. From Jay's post: "(Press) legitimacy derives not from the founding fathers but from the opinion of living Americans." This framework for Jay's longer argument has a fundamental flaw. What derives "from the founding fathers" and "the opinion of living Americans" can't be disentangled. Our founding documents are the basis of any American's national identity, in the 18th century or the 21st. Public officials and military personnel take an oath to defend the Constitution. Our national holiday celebrates the Declaration. In wartime, other countries rally around common geography or religion or heritage. Americans rally around our common history -- from the revolution to 9/11 -- AND our common understanding of our founders' intent. How can "the opinion of living Americans" avoid taking its cue from the founding fathers? Extremists in any jihad against the press seek to shatter that shared understanding. That was true in the 1790's, when fear of war with France gave birth to the alien and sedition act and editors were jailed. Within a decade, the public said, "What were we thinking?" The same excess and the same remorse, more or less, prevailed during and after the Civil War and World War I. And about a decade ago, Erwin Griswold, Nixon's solicitor general, who had argued for prior restraint in the Penagon Papers case, wrote an op-ed disawowing his old claims that publishing the secret history of Vietnam endangered national security. (Geoffrey Stone's "Perilous Times" is a great primer on this dynamic.) The current generation of extremists, like their predecessors, want to expropriate the meaning of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the flag, making them the private preserve of their ideology or geopolitical perspective. That make it all the easier to label other perspectives obstructionist or treasonous. So what's wrong with making the case for press legitimacy on the documents that define us? This isn't a quaint or irrelevant approach. It is a necessary -- though perhaps not a sufficient -- basis for increasing public support for an independent press in general and The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the New Yorker, Time and the rest in particular. Posted by: Felicity Barringer at July 7, 2006 3:51 PM | Permalink Yep. I agree with Lex that this will be a never-ending process. I think where I may be out of the current mainstream on this one is just that I believe there's a technological arms race going on here, and we newsroom types are generally a bunch of technophobes. We don't want to consider formal, systematic solutions to crediblity, because we (often wisely) mistrust systematic solutions to press problems. Here's my analogy, for what it's worth. Small town governments tend to be informal and personal, and even though on their face these are a "good-old-boy" systems, they often work quite well for long periods of time. Formal checks and balances, written procedures -- all of this can be inefficient and silly in a town of 600 people where everybody knows everybody. An auditor might have a nightmare in such a town hall, but that doesn't mean the government is run any worse than the big city down the road. Applying big-city rules might even make matters worse. But what happens when the small town has a building boom? Thousands of new residents flood in, and they don't know everybody, and nobody knows them, and there isn't time to get to know them. Now informal ways of knowing and trusting fall apart. The town must either formalize its governing procedures in a voluntary way face various, inevitable scandals that will force it to become more formal. Must of us who have covered small towns can cite examples. It's practically a law of nature. One isn't right and the other isn't wrong. It's just a matter of what the computer people call scalability. I think we're like the small town residents. We're romantic and nostalgic. But we're part of a much larger media now, and the scale of that phenomenon is overwhelming all sorts of standards and traditions. I mean the audience just became TPFKATA. So, yes, securing the legitimacy of the press is something that will go on forever, but it's not quite the same thing that it was 10 years ago. I think we're crossing into terra incognita. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 7, 2006 4:03 PM | Permalink I believe Safire believes the founders gave rights to the (professionalized) press that they did not give to the people-at-large. Jay, it's curious that you made this point about Safire since the people-at-large's press freedom was not mentioned in the MTP segment. And you to get annoyed at bloggers vs. old media debate. Anyway, freedom of the press is for anyone who owns a press. And today anyone can own a press. Thanks for that response, Felicity. I agree on the "can't be disentangled." I agree that in appealing to the opinions of Americans the intent of the founders in setting up a free press is extremely relevant. So is arguing from a "common understanding of the ideas that make us a country." But... Professional journalists designated by the Constitution to handle secrets on behalf of the rest of us?... is not, in my view, a part of that common frame. That's what I meant to point out in my post. There's nothing wrong ("quaint") with arguing that that it is a part of the common core. I don't buy it. What I do buy is that the founders meant for Keller and Sulzberger to make their decisions independently. David Remnick's observation -- “More than any other White House in history, Bush’s has tried to starve, mock, weaken, bypass, devalue, intimidate, and deceive the press, using tactics far more toxic than any prose devised in the name of Spiro Agnew” -- reads like a syllabus for a course in Rollback. Professor Rosen. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 4:27 PM | Permalink You mean like a week on starve, a week on mock, a weak on by-pass....? This is a fair-minded post by Jay. I would wonder, though, how many MSM people (journalists and watchers - the ostensibly "objective" ones, as opposed to advocates in the press at the righty and lefty mags) come down in support of the Times' story or against it. I see them widely in support of the Times, either thoughtfully, as done here, or thoughtlessly, as Jack Shafer did at Slate, but rarely coming down in favor of witholding the story. I suppose that is to be expected among peers, but this viewpoint must be evidence of some kind of agenda if it is (as I suspect) very divergent from the views of the public at large. Posted by: R Rainey at July 7, 2006 4:33 PM | Permalink R. Rainey -- My sense is that there was considerable division within the MSM ranks at first, but less so now. I think that has more to do with word dribbling out in bits and pieces that the Swift program has been public knowledge since 2002 than it has to do with any "agenda." In other (public) contests, Bush has bragged about it, John Snow has held press gaggles to boast about it, Treasury undersecretary Stewart Levey has testified about it to Congress and the CounterTerrorism Blog has written in detail about it. In fact CTB's report on it is still up on the U.N.'s website four years later. That makes all the protest seem a tad disingenuous.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 5:10 PM | Permalink Paul, you meant Priest's prisons story, or the Times' NSA story? Doh! Both? :) Armando, With due respect, you make a factual error in this piece. The Founding Fathers absolutely chose a free press to make those determinations. No, they didn't, Armando. The power to declassify sensitive information rests with the Executive. The 4th Estate is not free, willy-nilly, to publish classified information without restriction. That is settled as a matter of statutes, and as a matter of case law upholding said statutes against challenges to their constitutionality. Indeed, your specific position was soundly refuted by the Supreme Court, in Harlan's decision in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts: "The publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws." As well as in Justice Black's decision in Associated Press v. United States: Member publishers of AP are engaged in business for profit exactly as are other business men who sell food, steel, aluminum, or anything else people need or want. . . . All are alike covered by the Sherman Act. The fact that the publisher handles news while others handle food does not, as we shall later point out, afford the publisher a peculiar constitutional sanctuary in which he can with impunity violate laws regulating his business practices. The Pentagon Papers case - so often lauded by half-educated reporters who haven't bothered to read Justice White's decision - also upheld the constitutionality both on the a priori restriction of publication of information which would cause grievous harm to national security, as well as the constitutionality of prosecuting members of the press after the fact for violating secrecy laws in other cases. In fact, Justice White ruled that he would have "no problem" with prosecuting the New York Times under criminal statutes, in that particular case. The founding fathers ensured the freedom of the use of the printing press to hold the powerful accountable - but that does not extend to the reckless disregard of national security concerns in express violation of federal laws prohibiting in some cases even the possession of - much less the publishing - of lawfully classified information and documents. All parts of the constitution are coequal with all other parts. The intellectual trap so many journalists - and liberals in general - fall into, is that they fetishize the 1st amendment over and above the other coequal paragraphs of the constitution (even as they chide conservatives for fetishizing the 2nd). But the power to classify and declassify documents is part of the chief executive's constitutional function as commander in chief of the armed forces. This power is not itself without limitation, of course. But the idea that the 4th estate usurps the legitimate function of the executive - in essence becoming an unelected and unaccountable branch of government in itself - is clearly unconstitutional. The law recognizes the compelling interest of government to keep certain things secret. And the courts have affirmed so repeatedly.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 7, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink Obviously, I'm citing the "parts is parts" doctrine of constitional law. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 7, 2006 5:33 PM | Permalink Daniel Conover in earlier comments. Precisely because no one elected the press it must find other means of securing its legitmacy. These are inevitably political in nature; they involve persuasion and “public opinion” as well as the protections of law. Exactly right with "How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism?" That is the Mississippi of narrative streams at this blog. But you put it better than I did with "to secure is not the same thing as to defend." How do we secure the legitimacy of journalism is a lot trickier problem than people socialized (educated) by the profession normally assume. New complications today with a switch in platform, networking costs lowered, and a new balance of power with users. However, sometimes the best way to secure the legitimacy of journalism is to defend its practices. And so PressThink, 04-06, has also been about which parts should be defended, maintained, strengthened and carried along to the next stage of practice. It's tried to be against automatic thinking. I think the key to improving journalism is finding the really good problems to work on. To Mr. Lovelady-- Did you or the staff at CJR have knowledge of Swift before the Times published? If the answer is yes-- did you understand the intricities in following the money or did you assume that we were looking for monetary transfers by and among terrorists here and/or abroad? Posted by: richard siegel at July 7, 2006 7:06 PM | Permalink Jay Rosen: But... Professional journalists designated by the Constitution to handle secrets on behalf of the rest of us?... is not, in my view, a part of that common frame.The modern invention is really the divide between the "professional" - or what the Supreme Court called the "institutional" - press and citizens. Rise of a Free Press 1474-1830 On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: In the first place, I observe that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this state, and in the next, I contend that whatever has been said about it in that of any other state, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved?" What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this, I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.1 And here, after all, as intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.First Amendment Center What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and now Web sites and Internet postings....CJR, Freedom of the Press: The Most Serious Threat Is ABUSE OF PRIVILEGE So the press was not so imperial as some have portrayed it. But, as the dust settled in the 1980s, it was the powerful press that most visibly symbolized the drastic changes of the preceding twenty years. Its new prominence, in turn, exposed more of the workings of the process to public scrutiny. In the process, the press came less and less to seem like a faithful surrogate for the public, whose alleged "right to know" journalists used as a kind of universal search warrant. Sources and news consumers alike became much more aware of the press as an institution with its own survival requirements, private interests, and sometimes unattractive ways of tending to those needs. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 7, 2006 7:41 PM | Permalink To Mr. Lovelady-- Did you or the staff at CJR have knowledge of Swift before the Times published? If the answer is yes-- did you understand the intricities in following the money or did you assume that we were looking for monetary transfers by and among terrorists here and/or abroad?
Did I have knowledge of Swift before the Times published ? Yes, I did. It is hardly a "secret" that U.S. Intelligence tracks financial transactions in search of money flowing into the hands of terrorists. As I noted, it's been known for four years -- and the administration has been bragging about it for four years. Did I "understand the intricacies" of the program? Of course not. But, then, neither did I want to -- and neither did the New York Times report reveal those intricacies to me or to anyone else. I have the same problem with this bogus uproar as I had with the bogus uproar over USA Today's revelation about phone taps. (I don't have a problem with the uproar over the New York Times' revelation of illegal and warrantless surveillance.) I'm trying really hard to imagine a group of terrorists (or, for that matter, a group of Congressmen) sitting around exclaiming, "Omigod, you mean to tell me the U.S. government taps phones ???" or, equally unlikely, "Omigod, you mean the U.S. government tracks money transfers ???" Sorry, does not compute. Greenwald is right; this is election year politics; this is an attempt to divert attention. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 8:01 PM | Permalink A typical SWIFT transfer instruction: Amount: USD 5,000,000 under debit of account 1234 5678 with Nigerian Trust Bank [remitter's bank/account] What part of this set of instructions is it too complex for a terrorist transfering money to understand? First, it was never a big story, but apparently the Times, in a moment of conceit, thought it was. Second, it must be an idiotic terrorist that does not know about the investigative holy grail 'follow the money'. Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 8:28 PM | Permalink All ye supporters of the 'freedom of the press' and 'editorial judgement', think of this: how would you like to have Brit Hume exercise that judgement in a Gore presidency?:-) Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 8:42 PM | Permalink Lichtblau was clueless about the entire subject in an article in 2005. This conflicts with the "everybody knew about it" second or third set of excuses. If everybody knew it, why is it news? More to the point, why is it front-page news? According to the NYT, it was legal, there was oversight, and it had been effective. And, if everybody knew it, putting it in the paper was a complete waste of ink. Their excuses don't wash, and conflict with each other. Sorry performance. Martha Graham thought that the WaPo might have inadvertently alerted the terrs to a code breaking and contributed to the Beirut bombing which killed about 240 Marines. She says it was an accident, one of those things, which is nice to know. The WaPo actually did purposefully blow a Laos POW rescue op in the Seventies. I talked to the reporter who did it. He lied about the reason. Man, was I suprised to hear that. That he would lie to me, I mean. I think the public's right to know includes the sources the journos use. I mean, I'm the public. Don't I get to say what I have a right to know? Or are the journos the guys who know what I have a right to know and what I have no right to know? Now, the journos are obviously in a position to tell me to pound sand when I ask who their sources are, but that's not the same as convincing me they're right, and when I find some leverage, I may--not being convinced they're right--use it. As I used to say thirty-five years ago, if I were getting ready to step into the dark over an enemy city, depending for my life on nobody knowing, would I be happy to know a journo knew? Hell, no. I'd refuse to go. It is conceivable that some would hold back the info. But the NYT and its buddies are making the odds I could be convinced considerably less. Victor Hanson, who is plugged in, said the military has discussed ways it can win a war before the media lose it. I don't know if he was venting, speculating, had heard a bitch session, or something more formal. But if the military are not dicussing such things, they're 'way behind. Village. Not all terrs are geniuses. I would presume they choose their finance guys with at least some concern about IQ. But when the investigators are on your tail, and when the methods of moving money are closed to you, or perhaps they're closed, or some of them are closed but you don't know which, and you haven't been reading the NYT who thought--the first time--that this was news which means few knew of it, you might be inclined to do something besides get a pile of small bills and a ticket to Waziristan. This was unnecessary, and partisan. And forty'leven posts making excuses don't change that. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 7, 2006 10:44 PM | Permalink But you forgot to mention: He lost that argument. Fortunately, the rest is history. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 7, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink Village. Not all terrs are geniuses. I would presume they choose their finance guys with at least some concern about IQ. But when the investigators are on your tail, and when the methods of moving money are closed to you, or perhaps they're closed, or some of them are closed but you don't know which, and you haven't been reading the NYT who thought--the first time--that this was news which means few knew of it, you might be inclined to do something besides get a pile of small bills and a ticket to Waziristan. Genius is not even in play; SWIFT is pretty much the only cross-border electronic money transfer system. It mostly operates through in-country clearing systems that are typically run by central banks. So it is difficult to ignore the government presence and neither is there any expectation of privacy. If somebody is using this system, it would have to be by routing funds through one or more bank accounts in names that do not attract scrutiny (like the Saudi Ambassador's, or Jack Abramoff's, for example) and having the person/s launder the money for you. But if one has gone to these lengths to set up a money network, it is hard to imagine that the Times story would be news to this person. Posted by: village idiot at July 7, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink Whatever one may think of its choices, the public elected a government via long established constitutional democratic processes. That government was elected during a time of war, obviously empowered by the electorate to conduct that war. Some holders of highly sensitive classified information, not satisfied with the consequences of that process, choose to ignore democratic principles by anonymously leaking this information. These individuals, violating oaths by which they gained access, are ultimately anti-democratic. By their decision to anonymously break the law, they have proven unwilling to shoulder the consequences of their actions, instead changing US policy and damaging capabilities without accountability. These are not whistle-blowing people of conscience, or they would aver anonymity. The press' choice to use these cowards, by publishing the resulting classified information, abets this criminal anti-democratic activity, and should be viewed as such. The press is encouraging serious anti-democratic criminal activity for its own purposes. How does it justify this conspiracy to violate the democratically enacted (and constitutionally tested) laws and the undermining of recently elected officials? Have harmful abuses of the "blown" programs been found? If so, do these outweigh the dangers of publication? Does the MSM have the knowledge to know those dangers, when it betrays appalling ignorance in so many areas? Why does the MSM repeatedly and knowingly violate national security laws? The founders and the Constitution envisioned a healthy and free press. But no government can protect the rights of its people if it cannot protect them or itself from attack. To be dead is to not have freedom of speech. Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans, I’m afraid. As Jason mentioned, SCOTUS has repeatedly found that the press can be held criminally responsible when it violates the law. The establishment press has no more protection than the ordinary citizen (TPFKATA), no matter how much power it arrogates to itself or how noble it imagines its motives. Members of the MSM are (so far) unconvicted felons, and proud of it. Asked above is how the press gains legitimacy. How about by behaving responsibly and not conspiring with anti-democratic cowards? How about giving the administration, regardless of political differences, some credibility in its warnings of danger? How about not repeatedly acting feloniously. Beyond the danger of the MSM’s revelations is the obvious partisanship. The press crowed almost every day about the evil of the Valerie Plame leak (which apparently was legal and immaterial), while producing little but self-congratulation about other far more damaging revelations? Could it be that the MSM smelled administration blood in the former? Is it any surprise that many of us deduce partisan motivation, and choose not to believe any of the high-minded bloviations we read here and throughout the MSM justifying the release of our most sensitive secrets to Al Qaeda and its friends? From the publication of the NSA foreign wiretap program to the recent publicizing of the SWIFT program, the press has behaved as if working for our enemies. Legitimacy? How about just behaving well enough to be regarded as responsible American citizens? Posted by: John Moore at July 7, 2006 11:45 PM | Permalink I'm with Chalmers Johnson when it comes to taking on the classification state. This is not something that can ultimately be solved by the fourth estate. This statement brings us to the third sorrow that accompanies imperialism and militarism--the replacement of truth by propaganda and disinformation and an acceptance of hypocrisy as the norm for declarations coming from our government. Official lying increases exponentially as imperialism and mlitarism take over. Our military sees propaganda as one of its major new functions.(p.298) There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of Congress, reform it along with the corrupted elections laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption. Failing such a reform, Nemesis, the goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us.(p.312) Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 7, 2006 11:51 PM | Permalink I'm with Chalmers Johnson when it comes to taking on the classification state. This is not something that can ultimately be solved by the fourth estate. Can't agree with you more; the press has been neutered. Rollback is not the only cause, however; the press' own self-alignment with the establishment, the monied and the powerful, over the years is equally to blame. It is inextricably 'embedded' now, in more ways than one. Nothing farther than "holy", in fact. On the other hand, I would not put too much hope in the notion that the citizenry is about to rise up against the established order. The chances of a popular uprising taking root are inversely proportional to the obesity index of a society! So, on to Lachlan from Rupert, we go lurching .... Posted by: village idiot at July 8, 2006 12:40 AM | Permalink VI, Your presumption of knowledge on the part of the terrorist is a common and unconvincing excuse. It is easy to assert, and may be very comforting, but dangerous. It’s foolish to credit an enemy with either too much or not enough capability and knowledge. Defense should be in depth. Rather than arguing for minimum secrecy, which is an essential part of the MSM excuse, one should argue for excessive secrecy. Counter-intelligence experts understand this. An example is the "need to know" principle in the handling of secrets. When I held a security clearance, I was not authorized to read material at that level unless I had a "need to know" it in order to do my job - even though I was "cleared" (investigated) for material that sensitive. While something may seem obvious to one of us, it may not be to the enemy. Furthermore, the enemy is forced to choose among unpleasant alternatives in his logistical operations. By revealing our capabilities and actual activities, the accuracy of those choices is improved - to our detriment. Enemies seek to know as much as possible about the opposition. This is done by intelligence techniques, which even in the first world use primarily public information. It is the knitting together of many clues from public and other sources that results in a picture of capability and actions. Thus an enemy may be able to see, or evaluate a chink in our armor, ultimately as result of a "minor" release of information. Data mining is a high tech way to do this, and unfortunately some of that by our government has also been hobbled. In this war, more than any other, we are fighting a heterogeneous enemy. The ideology is viral, and complete amateurs catch it - becoming terrorists without any initial contact with an organization. These folks will likely seek contact and support, and may be unsophisticated in doing so. This provides an fleeting opportunity for us: a relatively obvious "secret" may be new to them, but the revelation may prevent us from detecting them. In wartime, dramatic sacrifices may be necessary in the name of secrecy. During World War II, Churchill sacrificed the inhabitants of Coventry to preserve the Enigma cryptographic secret, for example. Is it asking too much for a bit more discretion in the publication of even "minor" secrets, much less major ones such as who we are cooperating with (ending that cooperation) or NSA capabilities and how they are being used? The primary argument against the holding secrets is distrust of government - a healthy attitude. However, during wartime the balance of this distrust and the chance of enabling an enemy to do grievous harm has to be more tilted towards secrecy. We have a long history of democracy, and even those occasions where the government has misused secrets for partisan or personal advantage have failed to ultimately damage our civil liberties. We have more liberty today, in a time of global war, than we had a mere 40 years ago. Unfortunately, some in the MSM are showing that they cannot use it wisely. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 12:57 AM | Permalink VI:I can't agree with you more; the press has been neutered. This "neutered" press still seems able to broadcast our vital secrets far and wide. I think your assessment is ridiculous. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink I agree with Paul and Steve on this one. SWIFT itself is not secret and the fact that the government is monitoring it is not surprising and not really new. When the story broke, SWIFT sounded familiar to me, and I realized the reason was that I had, years ago, written a story about EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) software. EDI transactions at that time usually ran over private networks made up of lines leased for dedicated use from phone companies; these networks are usually referred to as VANs (Value Added Networks). SWIFT was one of the biggest VANs, many banks and financial institutions were and are subscribers. SWIFT itself is most definitely not secret (just a quick Google brought me this press release regarding child support payments made internationally via SWIFT). My main reaction to the revelation that the government was monitoring SWIFT was, "Duh! Of course they are!" I'd be kind of upset to find out that they weren't, particularly as monitoring of SWIFT has been used frequently in the past to detect money-laundering and fraud. The existence of SWIFT and its monitoring isn't a surprise to me, and I'm hardly an insider; I doubt the existence of SWIFT and the probability that it's being monitored and has been used to detect crime in the past is news to any criminal hoping to use it to move money. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 8, 2006 1:08 AM | Permalink Lisa, But you don't. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 1:14 AM | Permalink Reminder from post: Let’s not pretend there can be any “debate” between those views. Storm conditions, yes. Discourse, no. Second reminder from post: David Ignatius ran to daylight when he asked in a column... not who should be trusted with secrets, but what have the parties involved—the Bush White House, the American press—actually done to build public confidence in their judgment as they handle secrets in a classified war? You can tell who's chomping at the bit, but... Arguing about the decision to publish is going to go nowhere fast. Not because the decision isn't arguable, but because it is endlessly arguable, in part due to the fact that our knowledge is vastly and fatally incomplete. It won't be easy, but try to imagine a situation where every decision the Times could make is irresponsible-- to trust in Bushco, to not trust and make an independent judgment with fatally incomplete knowledge, to ignore, to wait. Watch out. We may be in a situation like that. Why does there have to be a "right call?" (As in: "that was the right call.") Is it a law of nature? Maybe all calls are wrong and that's what so vexing. Which is why I recommended instead: how does an independent press cover a classified war? Let's see if any of you learned anything about being baited by people who think you represent the clueless, irresponsible, war-undermining press and who come here to spew their disgust and jeer at you, so that you'll make the noises they expect to hear. I'm anticipating the same old game and that the same old tactics will work on you, the baitees, so any improvement will be a plus. Jay, I don't come here to bait, but I suspect you are referring to me along with others, since I do indeed think many here represent or at least defend the irresponsible war-undermining press (not clueless, though). I would hope that the work I put into my responses is not dismissed as spew, but it probably will be. Certainly it is meant to be harsh, as that is both my viewpoint, and perhaps one that will cut through the clouds of bloviation. Yes, some of us have strong opinions, and some are very negative towards the MSM. Of course, I see equivalently strong opinions in the press and here directed towards people with my viewpoint. Fair is fair - except when you own a press and I do not. As to arguing about whether to publish - Jay, isn't that at the heart of covering a war you describe as "classified", at the heart of the issue of journalistic respectability during that war, and is very much an issue today because of the much discussed publication of secrets? To dismiss discussion of that as a game and tactics (or "baiting") is to demean those of us who have a different point of view from your own. Once again, as I see so often in the press, it would appear that disagreement is taken as mere tactics - nothing to be taken seriously, but rather just some of the great unwashed trying to cause trouble. It reminds me of how the press covers so much in Washington - not as the serious business of governing, but as a petty contest of tactics, and as a horse race. Too many times, the actions of officials are reported in a purely political context - as if officials never mean what they say or work for the nation, as opposed to pure partisanship. Projection by the press? I often suspect that members of the press view almost anything through a cynical zero-sum lense - as petty politicking and personal gamesmanship. Could this be one reason the public has such a negative view of almost everything national, including the press? Perhaps you can suggest how to discuss covering a "classified" war without going into the issue of what secrets to publish. I'm waiting. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 2:17 AM | Permalink The post I wrote says the decision to publish was arguable, John. There are people who come here to bait the participants, and there are participants who never seem to learn this, John. If you don't do that, then you are not included in my alerts. I think my point was that arguing about cases and judgment calls with someone who thinks a classified war shouldn't be covered may prove fruitless. Whether you are in the category or not I do not know. I'd rather have participants develop the latent theory that I believe is involved here-- that of the public's right not to know. PressThink examines issues of practice in the press of the current day. But almost all the really good examples -- stories that provoke questions about what the press is for, how it works, etc., -- come from stories about subjects that people have strong and largely fixed opinions about. So the conversation drifts toward the no-ideas Crossfire zone: the place where nobody ever changes their mind. And it's not like there isn't a metric ton of that stuff delivered fresh every morning. So, back to the press issue at hand. "How does the press cover a classified war?" In particular, how do they cover it in an era of Rollback? What do you do when access journalism is dead or dying? And it's not just in Washington: what do you think reporters think about stories they wrote about Enron or Worldcom just before they collapsed, stories based on sources that just plain lied? What do you do when sources a) stop talking to you or b) lie to you when they do talk to you? Well, you start writing stories that don't depend so heavily on these sources. What I see when I read the paper is a new emphasis on stories that have public documents of all kinds, from the National Archives to YouTube -- as their genesis. I see more and more of these stories, but it's gotten off to a clunky start -- sometimes it results in stories that aren't news. Example: the NYT story on Wikipedia proclaiming that the online encyclopedia had changed its policy on allowing edits. But articles on John Kerry and George Bush were frozen for most of the 2004 political conventions. So is it news? The SWIFT story strikes many the same way. There was already information out there. This kind of "more data, fewer human sources" story may be more difficult to write. The reporter is parachuted into a mountain of data about a subject (or area of a subject) that's new to them. How is he or she going to avoid misreading the data and making beginner errors about the subject? Well, sources used to do that: you'd find someone knowledgeable about the subject, hand them something and say, "I found this. What is it? What does it mean?" But these days the sources are toast. One way to avoid writing the kind of story that will prompt letters to the editor from the people who wouldn't talk to you pointing out errors may be to have a reporter's notebook that's online. Link to what you found and say what you think it might be and let the TPFKATA party begin! I do think this would work for a wide variety of stories (it would, I think, radically improve conditions for science, health, and technology journalists, where the challenge of picking up a difficult subject quickly and with accuracy is very high). The technology journalist Clive Thompson's blog Collision Detection is an excellent example of a writer using a blog to work out (and discover, sometimes from readers) ideas that later become fully-finished articles. Issue #1: it may not work for war or political stories because the comment section would just become an idea-free Crossfire zone. A general request on a blog for information about SWIFT and how governments use it to stop crime may have turned up the 2004 reports, however.
Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 8, 2006 2:48 AM | Permalink Sirs, The degree of Faustian quotes regarding the Fourth Estate and the claims for unique "Rights" is obnoxious. Consider the works linked below: Thomas Jefferson http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=160&parent=57 Or John Adams, Letter to the Abby de Mably, on the Proper Method of Treating American History; In the Appendix to the Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=141&parent=54 (Serious readers will appreciate that selective quoting of the above writings, however typical and acceptable in our modern 'factoid' intellectual culture, is in fact an insult both to the individual authors AND those whose desire to lessen their own yawning ignorance on the matter is actually sincere. Federalist 84, indeed!) Mr. Bradlee is perhaps the perfect ironic choice to represent the hypocrisy and shamelessness of a certain species of newsman. Special Agent W. Mark Felt, aka "Deep Throat", has a very well documented body of projects that he oversaw during his tenure at the FBI that, had his identity as the WP's principal source been disclosed, certainly would have colored the public (and rival news agencies) debate over the Watergate fiasco. Was Special Agent Felt ever seriously in need of protection as a confidential source and whistleblower? Ha! No. This is a man who, figuratively speaking, knew G. Edgar Hoover's dress size! Mr. Bradlee certainly knew that having been passed over to replace Hoover as the head of the bureau, agent Felt's motives and thus the reliability of his disclosures WERE NOT "objective". It no doubt occured to Mr. Bradlee that a man of genuine principle would have become a whistleblower BEFORE he rose to number two at the FBI. Or that Agent Felt had a past so riddled by overt (and likely criminal) violations of the Constitution himself that he'd make the CREEP boys look almost benign in comparison. The point is that selective disclosure and use of only those aspects of a large body of sensitive ("secret") information that conform to a pre-defined rhetorical conclusion, WHILE abusing the spirit of US constitutional protections for the press by HIDING other aspects or information that might damage said conclusion if known by political opponents OR neutral parties, is what both the Watergate, Rathergate, and the current debates are essentially about. The NYT, LA Times, and Ben Bradlee's WP can, of course, PRINT whatever they like... the question of libel is for lawyers. But regarding the publication of information that is deemed "classified" or "secret" NONE of the authors of the Federalist should be claimed as advocates... not Jay, who was a diplomat, nor obviously Madison or Hamilton (as President and VP respectively) can be argued to have understood the concept of "Freedom of the Press" as unqualified in cases that touch upon official National interest. So Mr. Bradlee's "holy profession" seems to have the same attitude of philosophic Proportionalism used by the Jesuits during the counter-reformation... For the Editors and Publishers, our secular cardinals and bishops, and for the Confessor/Journalists in their employ; And especially for those in political or institutional positions of Power that conform to whatever Dogma Mr. Bradlee's small 'c' catholic media establishment determines is free of heresy, there is ONE standard of Ethic and Morality. While for the rest of us, whether we are apostate media heathen bloggers, excommunicated political figures like Joe Lieberman, or merely the flyover American flock to be fleeced by the new "Holy Profession"... for the rest of us, there is a DIFFERENT standard. Finally, for those of you in NYC or LA or D.C.: "small town" America has news papers than pick up stories from the wires as well as syndicated "big city" papers like the WP or Times. Welcome to the internet age. Posted by: A. Scott Crawford at July 8, 2006 6:25 AM | Permalink Ann Coulter (pause to let the disgusting glottal noises which pass for thought to die down) asked if the NYT had ever broken a story of al Q's secrets. Some blogger expanded on that, referring to Brit reporters going underground to mosques and finding stuff which is pretty scary. But, of course, the concept could go further than that. If the NYT and its buddies were doing thorough, professional, energetic and balanced reporting on the GWOT, you'd think they would stumble over something that could inconvenience al Q. Law of probability and so forth, not to mention the possibility of being active reporters. Apparently, after said stumbling, they pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. Where is the MSM's work exposing al Q's secrets? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 8, 2006 7:31 AM | Permalink In the spirit of making things easier--and nefariously by taking away an excuse--see Ed Morrisey's blog, "Captain's Quarters". Morrisey is not a professional journalist. He appears to have a day job. His wife keeps him busy, as she has advanced cancer and between worry and treatment, his energy and time must be severely stressed. He was the one who broke the Canadian scandal "adscam" despite a gag order by the investigating judge. Busted government secrets wide open. You guys have to love that. Right?
Looks like a good reporter could keep himself in work for years. Perhaps one of the roles of TPFKATA is to hand a journo a story and try to force him to run it, even if he and his editors would prefer it never see the light of day. Anyway, The Captain has stories by the dozen. Free. Start right in. Of course, TPFKATA are entitled to draw conclusions if you don't. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 8, 2006 7:52 AM | Permalink A. Scott Crawford, Now that's a proper ribbing. Bravo! Encore! In order to increase the link value to PressThink, let's make those urls hyper: Thomas Jefferson John Adams -------------------------------- Lisa Williams: "What do you do when access journalism is dead or dying?" Can you describe what you mean by "access journalism?" I'm particularly interested within the context of special rights (or privileges) for the institutional press. Underlying Jay's ponderous question ("how should an independent press cover a classified war, or should it even try?") is the rhetorical understanding of "an independent press?" Risking insult to the author, or acquiescence to a factoid culture ... Toward a Progressionist Theory of Constitutional Interpretation Media lawyers have thus sought judicial acknowledgement of the right of journalists to attend judicial proceedings;[6] to access government records;[7] to monitor activities in federal prisons;[8] to break promises with their confidential sources without being sued for damages;[9] to be protected against tort claims targeting their newsgathering activity;[10] and to be exempt from prosecution for certain crimes committed in their pursuit of news.[11] They have also challenged restrictions that intrude too deeply on their autonomy and which they say have the potential to inhibit both their expression and their investigative zeal. These include government subpoenas of their confidential materials,[12] government searches of their newsrooms,[13] and attempts to compel disclosure of the details of their editorial decision-making processes.[14]...THE ORIGINS OF THE PRESS CLAUSE Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 11:37 AM | Permalink Sometimes the MainStreamMedia find themselves in direct conflict with the Bush Administration (as PressThink's Rollback doctrine has eloquently proposed and The New Yorker's Remnick has wholeheartedly seconded). Sometimes, the journalism of MSM reporters causes them to find themselves in the middle of a yet larger political battlefield. It is in that latter context that I understand, and subscribe to Priest's comments on Meet The Press. Of course the publication of the CIA-SWIFT story raises questions of the legitimacy of the press. But it is parochial of us, in this thread, to treat it as a PressThink story, rather than a political one, generally speaking. The fact is that the President and his supporters depend on a larger claim in this discussion, larger than the tactic of press rollback. We know the rhetoric of that larger claim: "everything changed after 9/11, we are a nation at war, if we cannot fight it in secret, American lives are put at risk, it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to decide how to fight the enemy, the permanent emergency has exposed old rules as quaint." The point Priest was making is that if those claims are true, then Barringer's argument does not hold. Current activity can, indeed, be disentangled from the nation¹s founding identity, because "9/11 changed everything." Karl Rove, speaking for the White House, explicitly makes this case: those who do not treat the current situation as a long war and do not grant the Commander in Chief the indefinite deference such a war demands are suffering under a delusional pre-9/11 mentality -- liberals who see Salafist terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. Arguments resorting to traditions of press freedom explicitly contradict the Rovian claim, since they argue that, even after 9/11, openness trumps secrecy, oversight trumps executive power, and individual privacy trumps homeland security -- even if "American lives are put at risk" in the process. However, First Amendment advocates are hardly in the forefront here, they are one group on Rove's wrong side among many -- civil libertarians, Congressional Constitutionalists, international lawyers, even airline travelers who resent having to take their shoes off. The Catch-22 of all this is that the truth or falsehood of Rovian claims cannot, by definition, be tested, since the act of testing them would in itself invalidate them. It would mean that we do not "trust the judgment and solemn word of the Bush Administration" and were therefore trying to turn the clock back to a pre-9/11 mentality. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at July 8, 2006 11:57 AM | Permalink We have more liberty today, in a time of global war, than we had a mere 40 years ago. Unfortunately, some in the MSM are showing that they cannot use it wisely. You must be referring to only the Caucasian citizenry, I am sure. Because citizens of Arab, Middle Eastern, African, South Asian, Malaysian, Indonesian etc. origins would disagree with your expansive, self-centered observation, as would our fellow citizens that are anti war, anti clerical, anti forced childbirth etc. So, much as it galls you, try to think of the 'MSM attitude' as a modest exercise in objectivity and empathy with the cause of such minorities that seem to regularly get caught up in the government's sweeps, whether by design or by incompetence. One of the hallmarks of a true liberal democracy is how effective it is in protecting the rights of the individual and countering the 'tyranny of the majority'. In the ideal world, the press has a huge role in helping bring this about, and I say the press is neutered because it delivers too little on this front, not too much. In my opinion, in balancing out the enormous power of the government, and the scope for its misuse, we do not need more deference from the press to those in power, but more hostility and irreverence. Posted by: village idiot at July 8, 2006 12:02 PM | Permalink Wars are fought by people, not by the few who enjoy the power to classify/declassify. A 'classified war' seems to me to be a clever device to avoid accountability by those making the decisions. So, much as the powerful would like to fight classified wars in pursuit of whatever grand designs on the globe they entertain, unless they are fighting them personally and with personal resources, it is not a classified war, really. Posted by: village idiot at July 8, 2006 12:09 PM | Permalink The executive branch has the legal power to classify and de-classify, and so in that sense, Village, if Bush, Cheney and the Pentagon say it's a classified war, then it is. How should an independent press cover a classified war, or should it even try? Those who attack the press for the release of classified information are interested in making as much noise as they can about individual cases (especially when they involve that cuture war bonanza, the recidivist figure of the New York Times...) but I suspect they are less enthusiastic about my question--"ponderous," Tim calls it--because if they had to state flat out that a classified war shouldn't be covered at all by an independent press--as against a palace or captive press--then the doctrine would sound extreme and dangerous and anti-democratic, which (I believe) it is. And if they had the courage of their convictions and sought to think it all the way through, I believe they would wind up explaining to us their profound belief in the public's right not to know (about the "war on terror") which again sounds sufficiently Orwellian that the deeper matter is avoided, in favor of wild talk about treason, espionage, executing editors after they are convicted, you guys don't know squid about crab, and so on. If the point is that the SWIFT story is not news, then that's a political judgment, not a news judgment. Example: the NYT story on Wikipedia proclaiming that the online encyclopedia had changed its policy on allowing edits. But articles on John Kerry and George Bush were frozen for most of the 2004 political conventions. So is it news? The SWIFT story strikes many the same way. There was already information out there. Lisa Williams said. (Not picking on Lisa, just using her comment as an example.) The information was out there in bits at different places. But when it appeared in more details in the NYTimes, LATimes, it was news to Lisa. Because Lisa said, earlier: My main reaction to the revelation that the government was monitoring SWIFT was, "Duh! Of course they are!I'd be kind of upset to find out that they weren't"Let's leave out the national security argument for now. The fact that government officials have mentioned tracking money, or that it had appeared at CounterTerrorism Blog, it's still news so a lot (a majority) people who don't read the CounterTerrorism blog. It's news to the majority of readers of those newspapers. It is news by definition in any newsrooms. Conservatives don't make the argument that the SWIFT story is not news. Because if it's not news, then they can't make the case that it harms national security. In the Plame leak, conservatives argued that it was not news, she was not covert or everyone in the DC cocktail circuit knew she worked at the CIA, i.e. no national security implication. Let's stipulate that the SWIFT story is news, then we're back to how to cover a classified war, Jay's thesis. Is the public harmed when the Post tells us about secret prisons in Europe or that the NSA is wiretapping or datamining our phone calls? Should we trust a government who said there was WMDs in Iraq? Government action is far more damaging than press action. Printing incorrect stories about prewar intelligence pales in comparison to using that intelligence to lead a country to war. (The government gave the media the faulty intelligence.) Operating secret prisons in Europe is far worse than writing about the prisons. I think the coverage of the classified war debate is a political debate too, more so than a freedom of the press debate. If you trust this government, then you say, no don't print. If you don't trust this government, then you say yes, tell us about its secrets (even classified) and conduct of the war. I don't think the coverage-of-the-classified-war debate can be done in theory or in a vacuum. It's hard to remove politics from it. It’s true that the New York Times makes for outstanding culture war theatre, but I think election-year tactics do not explain the severity of the storm. More is involved. The press is fighting to secure (but not defend?) its legitimacy. It would run the NSA, European prisons, SWIFT and Plame stories if they involved any government, even Democratic controlled ones. The press is fighting for legitimacy with the audience and TPFKATA. The audience is larger than the TPFKATA at this stage. The audience is the silent majority, the paying customers, the ones that subscribe to the papers. TPFKATA are freeloaders of content in the current platform. Would a neutered press, self-alignment with the establishment, the monied and the powerful, print those NSA, prisons, SWIFT stories? How do you explain those stories. Bucking their bosses every now and then? Jay Rosen: "... but I suspect they are less enthusiastic about my question--"ponderous," Tim calls it ..." <?> Does ponderous preclude enthusiasm? Are you arguing that there is no weight there? Is your starting point for discourse a dichotomy? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 1:22 PM | Permalink No, it is a weighty question, Tim. Maybe there is latent enthusiasm for it among critics of Keller and Baquet. So far it seems there is quite a bit more enthusiasm for the frothy fun stuff, like: "Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans." Which is like meringue. :-) Another example of the distasteful whipping of the meringue has been a single paragraph quote from Katharine Graham making its rounds on the net with no link. Which is why I linked to her article adapted from that lecture. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 1:45 PM | Permalink Yes, thanks for that link too. This is from Ghost in the Wire, an academic blog by Kenneth Rufo that I find interesting: Careless Whisper, Shoot the Messenger, and Other Fantasies ...And the New York Times will defend themselves, debates will ensue over journalistic standards during wartime, blogger ethics panels will be convened, and the issue will slowly fade with a wink and a nod, the New York Times having theoretically confirmed that the Gray Lady still has some journalistic gumption after all and the Republican leadership having theoretically demonstrated that they really care about the War on Terror, dammit, that liberal journalists don't, and so on. One cannot help but feel that there exists a collusion between these two forces, a game wherein both parties know they're mugging for the cameras but neither party wants to call the other out, for fear that the public might catch on to the whole charade. Robert Kaiser's "What isn’t new here seems more significant than what is..." (which I disagree with profoundly) is part of the script too. This must be the age-old tension between government secrecy and a prying press because our newsroom genes contain clear instructions for how to adapt to that. Rollback, classified war, permanent war, the stealth vice president, empiricism itself in retreat, and the greatest expansion of executive power since the New Deal-- there are no instructions for those. Hue says: The press is fighting for legitimacy with the audience and TPFKATA. The audience is larger than the TPFKATA at this stage. The audience is the silent majority, the paying customers, the ones that subscribe to the papers. TPFKATA are freeloaders of content in the current platform. I think the audience will always outnumber TPFKATA for a given story. But if even one in thousands is participating that can still produce an avalanche of people. Also, a more friendly word for TPFKATA might be sought: let's remember, TPFKATA are news junkies of the first order. My guess is that many already subscribe to lots of magazines & newspapers, or they are young, nonsubscribing, but unlike their peers in that they're paying attention to the news. In otherwords, precisely the customers that everybody wants. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 8, 2006 3:22 PM | Permalink Andrew Tyndall asserts (emphasis added): … publication of the CIA-SWIFT story raises questions of the legitimacy of the press… to treat it as a PressThink story, rather than a political one, generally speaking. If by political, he means partisan, then I find this an example of PressMisThink. Continuing… "The fact is that the President and his supporters depend on a larger claim in this discussion, larger than the tactic of press rollback." Here, Andrew mischaracterizes the objections by narrowing them to this one claim, and associating it with Bush supporters. One need not be a supporter of the president to object to the release of secrets, and there are many who do not support Bush but are horrified by the behavior of the press. Additionally, are a number of factors, many of them common sense and historical, buttress the argument against releasing secrets willy-nilly. … "everything changed after 9/11, we are a nation at war, if we cannot fight it in secret, American lives are put at risk, it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to decide how to fight the enemy, the permanent emergency has exposed old rules as quaint." The claim many assert is not nearly this broad. Rather, during any war, the nation must be especially vigilant in keeping its secrets. 9-11 dramatically demonstrated the existence of a pre-existing war, but didn’t fundamentally change the need for keeping secrets during a war. There were indeed permanent changes (major historical events have that effect) but primarilyh in the necessity to recognize a new threat - the existence and determination of loosely organized, non-state suicidal megaterrorists, successfully targeting the United States, and their potential for acquisition of WMDs. Painting arguments as partisan is a dangerous way of thinking, but an effective rhetorical tactic. Once viewed as partisan, an assertion is then treated by the careless and partisan as false, which is logically erroneous. In 2004, I honestly identified myself as an anti-Kerry partisan, and found that many consequently treated all of my arguments and assertions as automatically wrong and irrelevant. Those who value an intellectual tradition should guard against this gross failure of critical thinking. Additionally, many object to the indeterminate "long" nature of this war, and pin it on the administration or refuse to accept the Administration’s use of it in argument. Unfortunately, neither Americans nor the Administration started the war, and the end is only determined by subsequent events, not political calculations. This is a state of the world, not a political ploy by the administration. That it changes the argument about secrets, however, is undeniable and worth exploring, but not in a purely partisan sense. Andrew’s reasoning exemplifies what appears to be an attitude of the press I previous challenged: the politicization of everything - the idea that this war is a political construct, the determination of policies is purely a partisan matter, and arguments and assertions are only as good as the people who make them. Finally, "Catch-22 of all this is that the truth or falsehood of Rovian claims cannot, by definition, be tested," is itself a good argument for caution - for not releasing secrets if we don’t know if these claims are true (although in fact there are many more assertions to consider). It is better to be careful with lives than to require proof of danger as a condition to not publish. Personalizing the war and the reasoning as "Rovian" is to ignore the larger issues. The wisdom of releasing secrets is not a result of what Rove says (although his privileged access means his statements should be considered).. Rather, it is the consequences - not political, but of security (and civil liberties) - are what matter. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 3:35 PM | Permalink I still think there's some interesting difference between a story that's compilation of publically available facts and a story like, say "Ken Lay, Founder of Enron, Dies at Age 64," or a story which relies heavily on inside sources, unnamed or not. Compilation-based stories are interesting because they bring up the question of "what is news?" in a way that the other two stories don't. It's hard to argue that the facts themselves in either the Wikipedia or the SWIFT story are news: the facts aren't new, and are publically available. So what's the news part? If it's not the facts, then it's the *compilation itself* that is news. But that comes awfully close to saying "these facts, in this order, are news because I say they are." Now, slow down a minute! I think news judgement is valuable. It's just that I don't always agree with it. Sometimes a collection of facts that seems like a story to an editor doesn't seem like a story to me. My point is that news judgement plays a much larger role in these types of stories that, I agree with you, ARE fundamentally about compilation. After all, if the bar is simply, "It's news if people don't know about it," then how to tie a fly1 for fishing should get a shot at being on the front page. I'm sure that what you mean is that it should be new to most people *AND* meaningful. The Wikipedia story I give as an example wasn't news to me, and I was bewildered that a story about editorial policies at Wikipedia was significant enough to land on page 1 of the Times, though I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. As a user of Wikipedia, I didn't think the policy change was all that significant, so I thought it was strange to tell the mass of nonusers that it was Really Important. In short, it seemed like weird news judgement to me. *Shrug.* The people making the decision about what to put on page one have a different opinion; that's fine. With the SWIFT story, I'm not the only person in this thread whose reaction was, "of course they are." For a compilation story to be news to a reader, they have to believe that the news judgement -- the editors of the paper saying, "this is news" is correct. The two stories I mention here don't seem like strong stories to me on that basis. The Wikipedia story seemed like making a mountain out of a molehill, and the SWIFT story seemed obvious. Some compilation stories are brilliant, and I think the future will see more and more of them. I just don't think these are particularly good examples of the form. _______ 1. I recently bought a couple of fishing rods for myself and my kids, so an article on this would be timely. Well, at least in the Lisa World Journal. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 8, 2006 3:54 PM | Permalink In otherwords, precisely the customers that everybody wants. Yes everybody wants those customers, but there is little money in serving them right now. Sites like the NYTimes and WashingtonPost have huge traffic, but very little revenue from ads at this point. Today, it costs more to serve the TPFKATA, if company would isolate the web operation's cost against its revenue. How long can deadtree circulation and advertising support the new media? We often talk about the watchdog role and quality of content, and not the economics of the new platform. I've probably beaten the economic point to death, but economics is the biggest issue for the media its in current ownership structure and delivery platform. My guess is that media executives worry a lot more about economics than legitimacy, which is a luxury. Or whether it's a craft or a profession. Gannett has proven that higher quality doesn't translate to higher profits. I know from experience, I've worked for a Gannett paper. Jim Cramer said, abandon newsprint and force everyone to the web. For background reading, 1984 is online; here's Chapter 1. Posted by: Anna Haynes at July 8, 2006 4:33 PM | Permalink Lisa, yes meaningful is implied. You made the point that the TPFKATA are news junkies in the first order. But the MSM audience are not necessarily news junkies. I only included Wikipedia because the way you constructed that sentence. The front page news value of the Wiki story is questionable, and I don't equate the news value of the Wiki story with the Swift story. But then I didn't know that Bush & Kerry pages were frozen in 2004. If that was not mentioned in the Times story, it should have been. Editors don't assume all readers are news junkies or read a slew of blogs, and they do make mistakes on news judgment. One of my former editors use to say, (cynically about how hard we work to try to put out a quality, error free paper) it just goes to wrap fish the next day. The Press, Violating the Public's Right Not to Know A free press is only as beneficial as the wisdom of the people running it. Managing information and conveying the news irequires more thoughtful analysis than that provided by simple bumper sticker slogans like "the people have a right to know." The press should be able to recognize and act responsibly when they encounter the special circumstances when the public's "knowing" about something is less important than the damage that will result from releasing the information. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 6:05 PM | Permalink Hue writes: Operating secret prisons in Europe is far worse than writing about the prisons. Is the press, in a classified war, capable of making this value judgement for the entire country? As was stated before, and needs repeating: "Who elected the press?" Those of us who do not agree with the press on this would be happy to have a debate (not here, I'm sure Jay would ask). But we are not given that chance. The press has pre-empted it by simply publishing the information, clearly damaging our abilities to covertly work with other nations. Was it worth it? Who elected the press? Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 6:35 PM | Permalink What the hell is a classified war? Newspapers publish classified data that is disclosed to them by people who have the authority to disclose such information. Has it thus been unclassified at that point? Classification itself is conducted by the Executive. The decision is often based more on politics than national security. If the press is supposed to be independent, why should it take the governments word for it when they say certain info must be kept secret? Who elected the press to make these decisions? The press' responsibility is to bring matters that are of interest to the public to the public's attention. Sometimes they will screw up, but who doesn't? And what of Official Leaks? Just today, there is a a story that Rep. Hoekstra sent an angry letter to the president because he was not informed of an intelligence program the admin has been conducting in secret. Is this program classified? If the White House didn't tell Hoekstra about it, who did? Was that person authorized to leak it to the congressman? And what about the New York Times publishing Hoekstra's letter? This is the most secretive administration in history. They have classified more documents than ever before. In the past year, they have been busy reclassifying thousands of documents that were previously available for years. And they want us to trust them? Like Jefferson, I'll take newspapers without a government. Posted by: Mark Howard @ News Corpse at July 8, 2006 7:28 PM | Permalink The point Priest was making is that if those claims are true, then Barringer's argument does not hold. Current activity can, indeed, be disentangled from the nation¹s founding identity, because "9/11 changed everything." I agree with your construct, Andrew. However, if Mr. Rove or Mr. Cheney think that 9/11 changed everything, that still remains just opinion. The citizenry is not to be bound by what somebody in power thinks. While admittedly there is some executive discretion in the implementation of the laws of the country, what binds us all and defines our respective roles and responsibilities is the constitution. Mr. Cheney or Mr. Rove may think that 9/11 changed everything and attempt a powergrab that abrogates constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties of individual citizens, but in reality, such power is for the public to give, not for the executive to unilaterally assume. So until the citizenry agrees to cede such power through a properly deliberated and executed constitutional amendment, nothing really changes and the press (or any informed blogger, for that matter) is entitled (and dutybound) to inform the public about the attempts by the excutive to alter the constitutional contract on the sly. So if 9/11 changed the nation's founding identity, let us hear Mr. Cheney make a case for it; to the Congress, the States, and the People, and maybe there will be a supermajority for the notion that electing a king instead of a president is what it takes to deal with the so-called post 9/11 reality. And then and only then, would it be permissible for the Times not to publish something that the King does not apporve of. Posted by: village idiot at July 8, 2006 7:42 PM | Permalink Jay, That is to say, the rules of the game are: Print official leaks and one-sided declassified material even when demonstrably false and it appears to serve an exclusively partisan political interest, but never print inconvenient but demonstrably true material if it hasn't been leaked officially/off the record by the Executive branch even if the best interests of the nation appear to be served by its release. There is an active press complicity with following the rules just as there is an active press complicity with challenging the rules. When the official rules are patently unconstitutional, that makes it all the more fun. Will the press support the constitution? Or will it support the Bush dictatorship? This adminstration forces its citizens and its press to choose between obeying the laws of the new order or obeying the US constitution. It requires hard choices. Securing legitimacy in the eyes of those who believe in the constitution at this point requires sacrificing legitimacy in the eyes of the pro-Bush audience. Securing legitimacy in the eyes of those who are happy with the posture of our self-proclaimed dictator requires sacrificing legitimacy in the eyes of those who still believe in the constitution. It's really that simple. But the press has managed to create a worse case scenario (a little like Lieberman running as a "petitioning Democrat")--releasing disinformation on behalf of the executive branch and later turning around and releasing incriminating information on the executive branch. These actions require sacrificing legitimacy in the eyes of both sides of the debate. A true lose/lose proposition. This sort of behavior reveals a lack of interest in press legitimacy as well as simple cowardice. A press concerned with legitimacy would take the Fox route or the principled route. It wouldn't try to take both routes at the same time. "He said, she said" journalism starts to get comic when the press is faced with issues like: "Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney say the gloves have to come off and international law is a luxury we can't afford, but the sources throughout the CIA and the Pentagon say the gloves off policy has been a catastrophe and a US Supreme Court filled with Republican appointees and the Red Cross say this administation has been in violation of the Geneva Conventions for five years now and that the people held at Guantanamo are prisoners of war under US law until a legitimate court rules on their legal status." The self-proclaimed unitary executive has created a constitutional crisis. I don't recall the press requesting that the executive branch start acting like there is only one branch of government. How many stories have congressional supervisory committees now been briefed on only after the news they existed was broken by the press? That is not democracy. It would be a serious constitutional crisis even if our national security wasn't in the hands of Howdy Doody. The country is polarized. One woman's legitimacy is another woman's treason. What's maddening about the Post and Times is how they've played both sides of the classification war, they leak the official disinformation and then five years later when most of the damage is done they half-heartedly report a few of the lesser outrages. I'm not impressed. The most positive thing I can say is that it's better than unqualified capitulation. At this point, there must be reporters with whiplash trying to figure out which leaks are official disinformation and which not. "Just tell us what you want us to do!" the Judith Millers of the world must be shouting to themselves late at night. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 8, 2006 8:35 PM | Permalink Mark Howard: Are there any examples of wars that were not classified? No. What in fact do we regard as classified, from a journalistic point of view? News business sources and methods are classified. Everything else falls under Northcliffe's maxims and Mr. Dooley's wisdom: - Journalism: A profession whose business is to explain to others what it personally does not understand. - News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. - Th' newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th'ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward. Mr. Fuller writes: "The crucial thing for journalists to recognize is that their trade does not exempt them from the basic moral imperatives that guide all other human relationships. If they depart from the general standard, they must have a good and precise reason to do so. Pursuit of truth is not a license to be a jerk." In all too many newsrooms, that statement would resound like a three-bell bulletin. Newspapers publish classified data that is disclosed to them by people who have the authority to disclose such information. Has it thus been unclassified at that point? Newspapers publish classified information disclosed by people who have access to that information. That is not the same as the authority to disclose it. It must be declassified before it can be disclosed publicly by anyone with access. If the press is supposed to be independent, why should it take the governments word for it when they say certain info must be kept secret? That, detective, is the right question. If the press can be criticized for disclosing classified info it uncovers, should it also decline to publish classified info that the government brings to it? Sure. Don't publish. Or, do publish. Just don't ask for special immunity post-publishing above that of a citizen's first amendment right to publish classified information. And especially don't claim special professional privileges while refusing professional standards and responsibilities. Like Jefferson, I'll take newspapers without a government. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 8:40 PM | Permalink "Reveal sources that lie to you and burn you and tell them you will upfront," has got to be rule number one for restoring press legitimacy. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 8, 2006 8:41 PM | Permalink Mark Howard starts out with a good idea, but quickly goes off the rails. He is right that all wars are classified. General Patton commanded a non-existent army right before D-Day. That information was obviously classified, and the secret helped make D-Day a success. Winston Churchill's sacrifice of Coventry was mentioned before. The Manhattan Project was wrapped in secrecy and deception. Furthermore, secrets were classified during World War II for political reasons, but at least the press avoided publishing them. What makes this war different, among other things, is the willingness of the press to publish war secrets. Mr. Howard thinks that is just fine. Mr. Howard is dreadfully wrong. "Who elected the press," of course, is not meant to be taken literally. Mr. Howard misses that point. It means that the press has arrogated powers unto itself that properly belong to the duly elected government. Contrary to Mr. Howard's apparent belief, the press is given very little by the Constitution. Specifically, SCOTUS holds that the Constitution prohibits the government from acting in prior restraint. However, by not providing immunity to the press, it explicitly holds the press to the same standards as any other citizen when releasing classified information. The issue of official leaks is raised, as well it should be. The wrong conclusions are drawn, however, and official leaks should never be conflated with illegal leaks. When the executive leaks, authorized by appropriate powers, that is not a violation of the law. It may be done for political reasons, or it may be done for war-related reasons. No matter how offensive or unwise the leaks, they are legal and within the democratic powers of the leakers. The New York Times now has a number of people who admit to committing serious felonies - who are in fact proud of that. Does Mr. Howard advocate that citizens violate whatever laws they dislike, or does he hold the press above the law, and above the ordinary citizen? Given the arguments defending the press for its various felonies and damaging releases of information, what is the response if TPFKATA publish the names, addresses, phone numbers and other private information about the members of the Times? TPKFATA have exactly the same constitutional rights to do so. TPKFATA may find some excellent reasons for releasing such information - why should the Times be allowed to keep secrets when those defending us are not? Is there a symmetry here? Mr. Howard does us all a service, however, in showing that characterizing the current conflict as "a classified war" is absurd. This is as a war conducted by an administration apparently so hated by members of the press that they cannot view it as legitimate, and hence show few qualms about damaging the war efforts, sometimes justifying their illegal actions through civil liberties absolutism, but always finding some excuse for betraying their country. Of course, all of this begs the question that Jay asks. I think this is inevitable, because as much as Jay wants to avoid it, the central issue is to publish or not to publish secrets - which ones and why. That issue simply cannot be addressed without debating publishing decisions - fruitful or not. Finally, this thread is full of very nasty attacks on the current administration. Those of us who disagree have so far been restraining ourselves in responding to those attacks. Make no mistake, however - those defending the press and at the same time making extreme charges against the administration are only speaking to themselves - the great echo chamber of the main stream media. The rest of us, seeing attacks on the administration instead of reasoned argument, have our negative view of the MSM decision making process reinforced by this behavior. Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 8:43 PM | Permalink "Will the press support the constitution? Or will it support the Bush dictatorship? This adminstration forces its citizens and its press to choose between obeying the laws of the new order or obeying the US constitution." ROFLMAO As I was saying about extreme characterizations... Mark A - now that you have said that, I hope you are ready to flee to Cuba or some other safe haven before the Bush Gestapo knock down your door. Dictatorship, indeed! Posted by: John Moore at July 8, 2006 8:48 PM | Permalink John M, Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 8, 2006 8:52 PM | Permalink Bush's violation of the constitution is his unitary executive theory as the Republican Supreme Courty just established. That has nothing to do with the first amendment. If members of the press and the public get thrown in jail for supporting the constitution in opposition to the gang in the White House, that's the price of freedom. It is the Cheney administration (and John Yoo's) theory of the unitary executive that created this world. The rest of us just live in it, including the press. Pick your poison. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 8, 2006 8:56 PM | Permalink All, In my above comment, the single paragraph beginning, "Mr. Fuller writes:", should be blockquoted. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 8, 2006 9:40 PM | Permalink
Your post is almost entirely premised on the assumption that Ben Bradlee knew of Mark Felt's identity during the 18 months of the Washington Post's Watergate reporting. He did not. Bradlee did not learn of Mark Felt's identity until after Watergate concluded with Nixon's resignation. From a Thursday, June 2, chat with readers on washingtonpost.com: Columbia, Md.: Mr. Bradlee, as I understand it, you knew Deep Throat was an FBI official, but you never asked about his identity. If this is correct, I have to ask -- given what was at stake, how did you decide to display such an extraordinary amount of trust in two very young reporters, who did not enjoy anything near the prominence they enjoy today? How could you be sure? Thank you for your service, both militarily and at the Post. Ben Bradlee: I didn't know Deep Throat personally. I never met him. I did know -- generically -- where he worked. That was the Justice Department, which of course included the FBI. I did not know he was the number two person in the FBI. But the important thing about Deep Throat from day one was that he was telling the truth. Everything he told us was true and in that sense that was all I needed. After Nixon resigned I felt that some people were threatening the bonafides of our reporting and I thought that I had to know Deep Throat's identity. Woodward and I went for a walk down to McPherson Square and I asked him for Deep Throat's name and he gave it to me. Took about three minutes. Woodward and Bernstein were, in fact, very young and green but they were right. I was under some pressure to put one of the many talented veterans on the story but how could you take the story away from people who were doing such a good job? I couldn't answer that then and I can't now. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 8, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink "Arguing about cases and judgment calls with someone who thinks a classified war shouldn't be covered may prove fruitless." Point taken. There's not a lot to say to someone who fervently envisions a world in which every newspaper, magazine, journal of opinion, broadcast and cable outlet and Internet site is nothing more than a collection of Pentagon and White House press releases. It raises the question: Is there ever a point at which someone is allowed to say, "You know, I looked into this and here's what I found, and it strikes me as pretty fucking fishy, and here's why ..." ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 8, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady, You set up quite a straw man. Can you identify anybody with those views? For that matter, Jay set up an equivalent straw man. Same challenge. Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 12:08 AM | Permalink John: You seem to shrink from saying that a classified war shouldn't be covered at all. Why? A "classified war" means almost everything about it is classified, folks. All wars are classified? No, not in that sense. All wars generate lots of secrets that need to remain secrets, yes. The number of soldiers fighting in Iraq is not classified (135,000 is right, I believe; if not someone will correct me.) Try to find out how many people are fighting the war on terror, so called. Donald Rumsfeld is clearly the Administration official in charge of the Iraq War; he has operational authority and Bush has executive authority. Who is in charge of the war on terror? Who has operational authority? I have no idea. Do you know? One suspects it is Cheney. Was it ever announced? You can go to a Pentagon briefing to find out how the war is Iraq is going. Can you go to a briefing and find out how the war on terror is going? I think it's ludicrous to compare the level of secrecy and opacity in the "war on terror" to secrecy during conventional wars. Why Mark Howard would suggest it and Tim would agree is beyond me. Steve: Here's an off topic essay I recommend, Alan Wolfe, Why Conservatives Can't Govern. Right at the end he says something you would appreciate: "As the Bush administration fully proves, conservatism remains a force of opposition even when it purports to be a governance party." It occurs to me that this is also a factor in the recent storming of the press castle. Conservatives need opposition to their attempt to govern because they cannot govern (they hate government too much, Wolfe argues.) Right now, they lack opposition within government, so they have to find it outside. The press works beautifully. Finally, I liked this from Krugman on Friday: "And while the White House clearly believes that attacking The Times is a winning political move, it doesn't have to turn out that way — not if enough people realize what's at stake." Jay -- Exactly. When there is no opposition, you have to create one. The press serves beautifully. John -- You failed to answer my question: "Is there ever a point ... ? " When, in your world, does the press move beyond being something more than a collection of Pentagon and White House press releases ? Even you must have a "when." At what point does does that instinct to find what the hell is going on it kick in? I genuinely want to know. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2006 12:55 AM | Permalink Jay writes John: You seem to shrink from saying that a classified war shouldn't be covered at all. Why? Well, in that case, Jay, I don't know about that war. What classified war? Are we in one? Three? Which war is that? GWOT? Two major theaters of the GWOT are the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. I suspect you know quite a bit about them. Then there’s the Proliferation Security Initiative - a hardly secret multilateral operation to interdict WMDs. Many other aspects are public, unfortunately including some that shouldn’t be (such as the rendition programs or the NSA wiretaps). Is "almost everything" about that war classified? Let’s be serious. GWOT (or whatever it is called these days) is a multi-faceted effort by a wide range of organizations and countries. Are you complaining there is no single spokesman with handouts to give you at daily Washington Follies? Do you want a single numerical scale so you can tell if the home team is winning? Do you believe some instinct for secrecy is keeping that from happening? Just what is your problem? But on to your question. If a war is 100% classified, it probably shouldn't be covered at all. But I can't imagine a 100% classified war. Classified operations - yes, but wars? WARS? Nope. I thought when you wrote about covering a classified war, you were referring to the current GWOT, not some war that is completely secret. Was I wrong? …………………… On to your off-topic diversion. I started to read Wolfe's article, but its absurdity became clear within a few paragraphs, so I just skimmed the rest. How does it fit into a discussion of how to cover a "classified war?" Oh well, it's your blog, and if you want to link to poorly reasoned attacks on Conservatives, go for it. Of course, a little reading of conservative journals, which have been discussing the issues confusedly argued by Wolfe, would give a much clearer view of the subject - one dramatically at odds with Wolfe's ill informed rant. "Right now, they lack opposition within government, so they have to find it outside. The press works beautifully. Your theory on why conservatives are going after the press is, well... amazing. I'm trying to be polite here…. But… well…. I just can’t stop ROFLMAO! Please accept my insincere apologies ;-) Seriously, we didn't just start attacking the press recently. We have been unhappy with the MSM for a very long time; we know the press has been biased in an anti-conservative direction for decades. The recent sharp criticism of the release of classified information, however, is motivated by our disgust, shock and horror at the behavior of the press. Some bizarre need for opposition is hardly the reason we object to illegal actions dangerous to our nation. But let’s look at this idea of no internal opposition, which is required to support Wolfe’s nonsense about conservatives being unable to govern (tell Ronald Reagan about that, eh?). For example, Bush has never been a small government conservative (remember "compassionate conservatism?)". Not all conservatives are for minimal government, although most of us distrust large government. We are not silly libertarians, who fail to realize that the inefficient and untrustworthy government is actually necessary for some important things - most notably defending our country. Perhaps Wolfe is applying to conservatism the rule applied by the left to itself: ideological uniformity. That doesn't exist on the right - we have many variants - social conservatives, the old fashioned big-business conservatives, national greatness conservatives, hawks, libertarian conservatives, neo-cons of various stripes, etc. We even have very serious discussion of pro-choice, anti-gun Rudy Giuliani as a 2008 candidate. Can you imagine the left nominating an openly pro-life, pro-gun presidential candidate? It's a big movement, Jay, which is one reason we have a governing majority - in spite of the best efforts of a nearly monolithic press. And, because it is a big movement, it provides plenty of internal opposition, although why we would need opposition escapes me. Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 1:27 AM | Permalink Hue says: In otherwords, precisely the customers that everybody wants. Hard to blame the customers for the failure of the companies to establish a business model. My idea? Abolish pay-per click. IMO, newspapers went straight down the rabbit hole chasing after Google . Pay per click works for Google because they can effectively advertise across huge portions of the entire Web. Media companies, in imitating them, are imitating a business model that they will never be able to make work. I would already be giving money if there was a paypal link on every page -- I just don't want another subscription I can't be sure I'll use hanging around in perpetuity. Secondly, I suspect that we'll start to see models where people aren't paying to read -- they're paying to participate, to become part of a community. Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 9, 2006 1:31 AM | Permalink If I said it was an off topic essay and you want to know how it fits, then, John, we have problems. Anyway, it wasn't a link intended for you. I'm surprised you made it through "a few paragraphs." I will repeat my point about the GWOT: I think it's ludicrous to compare the level of secrecy and opacity in the "war on terror" to secrecy during conventional wars. Steve writes: John -- You failed to answer my question: "Is there ever a point ... ? " When, in your world, does the press move beyond being something more than a collection of Pentagon and White House press releases ? My apologies, I didn't notice the question. My answer is simple: I don't think the press should ever be just a collection of Pentagon and White House press releases. Heck, if that's all it is, it's not needed - we can get that information directly off the internet. However, if you are implying a dichotomy between a press release tamed media, and a reckless war secrets revealing press, then I have to vigorously disagree. The press can do many things outside of being a government lapdog without revealing national secrets to our enemies. I would hope that nobody needs instruction from me on the details. Unfortunately, the MSM has chosen a position of opposition to the government. In a time of war, such a position must be done with extra delicacy, careful judgement, and deference to our laws and our democratic system of government. We can look to World War II for how the press did not try to undermine the government, or to Vietnam for how it successfully undermined it, handing to the enemy what they failed to gain on the battlefield. But this war is more important than Vietnam. This war involves the probability of devastating attacks upon our nation - as demonstrated by 9-11 - but potentially much worse. The threat of nuclear armed terrorists is no longer merely a James Bond plot. Rogue nations like Iran and especially North Korea, teamed up with true enemies of western civilization - Islamists - can execute devastating attacks on us - killing hundreds of thousands of Americans and crippling our economy in a single blow. The press, through its reckless disclosure of secrets, is literally playing with nuclear fire. That is inexcusable. As far as I can tell, members of the MSM believe (among other things); -Bush is a budding dictator, determined to use his powers to illegally suppress enemies -Bush and his crowd use the war on terror to further their nefarious political (or business) aims, and as an excuse to gain dictatorial powers. -Even though Bush was elected in a democratic election, and the secrecy laws were passed democratically and have been vetted by the Supreme Court, the administration's classification of information has no legitimacy. -Privacy (as one example) in international communications is such a precious civil liberty, that a minor protection of that privacy is worth increasing the risk of nuclear terrorism - even when there is no evidence that any damage was intended or done by surveillance. -Members of the press can, and should, violate the espionage laws of the United States over and over again, and publish secret information knowing that our enemies will use it. They should receive Pulitzer prizes for their treachery. Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 1:49 AM | Permalink Jay Would you mind elaborating on I will repeat my point about the GWOT: I think it's ludicrous to compare the level of secrecy and opacity in the "war on terror" to secrecy during conventional wars. What exactly is ludicrous? Bringing in a historical precedent - perhaps because you don't view it as relevant? Having similar levels of secrecy? I really don't know what you mean. .................................... I'm surprised you made it through "a few paragraphs." Getting a bit snarky, eh? ....................... We don't have a problem. I do - I missed the qualifier in your reference. However, just because the link wasn't meant for me doesn't mean it is inappropriate for me to respond to it. It was, after all, a link to a long but specious attack on conservatives, and tied to your surmise about why conservatives are going after the press. ...enough meta-commentary Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 1:56 AM | Permalink Also, Hue: I frequently get this strange feeling when I talk to journalists: that inside the newsroom, and at the editorial level, that nothing must change. If someone brings up an issue, they say, well, that person's an exception, most of our readers aren't that smart. (That's the single most common response I get from journalists to the local newsblog/community site I run: Oh, Lisa's exceptional, no one else will do this. This comes up unprompted and very early in the conversation. I read it as a way to criticize the idea of newsblogging while avoiding criticizing me personally; and to respond to something that's going on inside them, not out here where I am. It would be just as easy (and perhaps as logical) to say: "God, you have a really weird hobby. Have you ever considered bowling?" That would be a very enjoyable interview: instead of bloggers vs. journalists, a boring and ultimately fake horserace story, let's get to the real conflict: blogging vs. Good Clean American Fun. Blogging vs. Bowling). I got an interesting demonstration of both the ingrained idea that things mustn't change and distrust of change at a talk I attended a few months ago. At the talk, a venerable newspaper-person appeared in a panel discussion. Responding to a conversation about blogs, he said (I paraphrase): that ordinary people wouldn't cover the news because the meetings were boring. We pay reporters, and unlike volunteers that means we can control them. Later in the same discussion, he also said that if a person did go to one of those boring meetings, he wouldn't trust that person to give them the story. Because just by virtue of showing up without being paid, they are *too* interested. These two remarks were separated by at least 20 minutes, and I don't think many people put together the two pieces. Taken together, though, they're a Catch-22: Regular people can't compete with us because they'll be too bored; and if they're not bored by it they're too untrustworthy. I hear a lot of this sort of weirdly circular stuff. All the while, circulation drops, and nobody seems to have an answer. The water keeps rising, yet nothing in the newsroom is allowed to change in response. I actually don't have suggestions; I don't make any claims that what I'm doing is better or would be more profitable. But the lack of movement in a crisis makes me nervous. It makes me want to say, Please, find an oar! Build a raft! Look, I'll throw you inflatable life rings! You're too young to die! Posted by: Lisa Williams at July 9, 2006 2:06 AM | Permalink Jay Rosen On the other hand, Bush has declared that Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror, so that might suggest that the authorities responsible for these two wars are the same. Tim Schmoyer Actually, they have published info from those who have authority to disclose. Scooter Libby's deposition states that Cheney, on Bush's direction, instructed him to leak the Plame story. Also, thanks for the additional context on Jefferson. It appears to me that he had the right idea when at his idealistic peak, but became jaded the more he was stewed in politics. John Moore Who says it wasn't to be taken literally? You take it literally in the very same paragraph. The press does not infringe on government powers when it reports on what the government is up to. That is its job. And the government was not elected to decide what the press is allowed to print. Posted by: Mark Howard @ News Corpse at July 9, 2006 6:04 AM | Permalink Mark Howard: Actually, they have published info from those who have authority to disclose. Scooter Libby's deposition states that Cheney, on Bush's direction, instructed him to leak the Plame story. OK, I really don't want to sidetrack the thread by opening a Libby-Plame debate. I agree there has been a debate about whether the President authorized a disclosure (leak) of classified information or declassified information. I disagree the information reportedly leaked was the "Plame Story". Jay Rosen: I think it's ludicrous to compare the level of secrecy and opacity in the "war on terror" to secrecy during conventional wars. Why Mark Howard would suggest it and Tim would agree is beyond me. Dana Priest is employing hyperbole when she says "it's a classified war." You disagree? Is it ludicrous to point out that any unclassified efforts in the war on terror falsifies her hyperbole? You consider it ludicrous to compare the degree of secrecy in the "war on terror" with the "war on communism", "war on fascism", "war on tyranny", or any other war. Fine. You've closed off any further discussion on it from me. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 7:58 AM | Permalink Interesting use of the English language by Jay Rosen at 12.23 AM. -storming of the press CASTLE-. I thought the underpaid, ink stained newsprint people lived in houses, apartments, huts and hovels. The newspapers are akin to the old line Park Avenue moneyed crowd who look down their noses at the nouveau rich who build castles (the bloggers). If it is true that this is a battle of--"my view, my turf, my castle is better and bigger than yours", then I suggest that this is Ozymandias revisited. Posted by: richard siegel at July 9, 2006 9:10 AM | Permalink The Cheney administration's Second World War analogy is a bait and switch. It is designed to legitimate fighting guerilla wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, NOT fighting a war on al-Quaeda, and cheerleading the guerilla wars of choice AS IF they were conventional wars, but absent any benchmarks that go along with the terms of conventional war. In the GWOT, we are told that the very field of battle itself is classified--but the administration's model of information warfare requires that the media itself is part of that classified field of battle we can't know about. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 9, 2006 10:21 AM | Permalink Mark Howard, before Jefferson stop reading newspaper, he used them for partisan purposes, according to Infamous Scribblers, Eric Burns. Newspapers during Washington's era didn't publish his war plans, but they were pretty brutal on him as a general and a president, according to Burns. Studying Internet companies during the boom, the Net was generally winner takes all, or the top site were head and shoulder above the rest. Then the winner loses to a change in technology. AOL won the ISP battle, the dial up battle that is. Amazon won the e-commerce (the purely online store with no brick and mortar) and Yahoo won the portal. Broadband displayed AOL, among other AOL problems. (AOL acquired Time Warner, and now AOL barely exists). I think Amazon is still the dominant etailer. Google comes along and overtakes Yahoo, but Google is a different company and technology, not a portal. I believe the change for newspaper companies will come in a way that we can't foresee, (or we can't imagine.) In 2001, if you told me that Google would become a dominant technology company, challenging even Microsoft, I wouldn't have believed you. Google software preinstalled on Dell computers. How could a search engine do that? (I'm no expert in technology and haven't followed new developments for a few years.) If you compare political blogs by traffic, the same phenomenon applies, the leader is head and shoulders above the rest. (The Kos Diaries should be added together with the State of the Nation.) Conover summarized the left/right differences in an email: What I find interesting is the way that the left and right approach blogs. Look at the top two right wing bloggers: Reynolds and Malkin. No comments allowed. The top liberal bloggers all allow and encourage comments. Righties go to Reynolds and Malkin and Powerline to get the day's zeitgeist and then go back to their own blogs and amplify the message. Kos and Atrios and Digby and Drum and Corn and Marshall are building what amount to online communities. You read there, you write there, you comment there. That bears out in the link metric. A friend at the N&O, (my last stop in journalism) said car dealerships are buying less ad space at the paper and spending instead on other web sites such as WRAL, which posts N&O stories recycled through AP. A TV website taking newspaper content and car-ad revenue, which was a virtual monopoly for newspapers with the auto sections, listings and ads. That ad money now is more fragmented. About the resistant to change, it's human nature for one thing. And little has changed in newsrooms for decades, even as they switched from typewriters to computers. The computer system before the web was purely for writing and editing. I could have never been a reporter in the typewriter era, with my bad grammar and spelling. I need to move phrases and sentences easily. I watched All the President's Men this weekend (netflix) for the first time in years. (Hal Holbrook who played Deep Throat looked a lot like Mark Felt.) Redford and Hoffman as Woodstein were using typewriters. There was a scene where Bernstein was in Florida, and saw the name of a Kenneth H. Dahlberg on a check to a Watergate burglar. Bernstein called Woodward from a pay phone to tell him about Dahlberg and for Woodward to find out who he was before the NYTimes. Woodward was looking in various phonebooks in the morgue (newspaper library), and a librarian said there was no clip file on Dahlberg, but there was a photo. The photo cutline had something about Minneapolis, so Woodward looked in the Minneapolis phonebook and found the listing. He called and talked to Dahlberg. But I'm not sure what you meant here, if someone brings up an issue, they say, well, that person's an exception, most of our readers aren't that smart. Can you be more specific about the change that they are resistant to. Cite and example offered and resisted? I don't get this (but in a way, it is consistent): Mark A - now that you have said that, I hope you are ready to flee to Cuba or some other safe haven before the Bush Gestapo knock down your door. Kinda sounds like some rascist I heard on TV suggesting that all the blacks should go back to Africa if they don't like it here. But filtering out the vitriol though, if somebody were to indeed try to flee the Bush dictatorship, why would Cuba be a safe haven??? Or, are you trying to suggest, ironically perhaps, that Cuba has a better civil liberties record than the US under Mr. Bush? In which case, the subliminal comparison with Cuba is interesting. Posted by: village idiot at July 9, 2006 11:11 AM | Permalink Hue: She means that your typical newspaper journalist has a frozen description of the people formerly known as the audience, which is really a prescription for how they "should" behave; and when presented with evidence that their description of people is wrong, or crumbling, or inadequate, your typical newspaper journalist says it cannot be, because after all the prescription is still the prescription, but it comes out as a description of the people out there, which tends to be quite bizarre, as in "our readers aren't that smart," which really means the audience should stay in its seats! Lisa, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard replies like the ones you heard. Most of them are meant to "prove" that journalists doing what journalists do cannot be replaced, and that there's no need to change. John: I already explained, with illustrative examples, what I meant by it's ludicrous to compare the level of secrecy and opacity in the "war on terror" to secrecy during conventional wars. If you don't find it convincing, well, that's horse racing. Your statements ("As far as I can tell, members of the MSM believe...") are all incorrect. If you actually want a window into what you would call MSM thinking, try the Robert Kaiser piece I linked to. Tim: Priest was employing hyperbole, yes. Not everything in the war on terror is classified. I interpreted her statement as "basically, this is a classified war, so how do you expect us to cover it?" I still think it's a good question. Richard Siegal: The post describes "press authority" as resembling a castle under siege. It does not suggest press people live in castles. By the way, can anyone make sense of the Wall Street Journal editorial I discuss with links in "After Matter?" I have read a lot of bizarre editorials in the Journal over the years, but there was something especially deranged about this one. Got any clues to what was it was trying to say? Mark Howard, Who elected the press to make these decisions? There's a terrific example of the fetishization of the First Amendment I mentioned above. You conveniently omitted that the President also derives his powers from the Constitution. And among these powers is the authority, as chief executive and CinC of the armed forces, to classify documents for the sake of national security. This power has been upheld by the courts time and time again against press challenges throughout the century. For the press to usurp this authority is for it to act counter to the Constitution. And laws are in place to limit their ability to do so. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 9, 2006 12:33 PM | Permalink The Wikipedia story I give as an example wasn't news to me, and I was bewildered that a story about editorial policies at Wikipedia was significant enough to land on page 1 of the Times, though I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. As a user of Wikipedia, I didn't think the policy change was all that significant, so I thought it was strange to tell the mass of nonusers that it was Really Important. In short, it seemed like weird news judgement to me. *Shrug.* The people making the decision about what to put on page one have a different opinion; that's fine. The weird new judgement is not so weird when you consider the fact that the New York Times Company is a competitor of Wikipedia via its About.com unit. It would be interesting to find out if the Times' article on Wikipedia disclosed the conflict of interest. Posted by: village idiot at July 9, 2006 12:40 PM | Permalink Jay, I can't defend that attitude. Your WaPo chat last year is a good example of that dynamic. Lawrence: Sir: With all the Romeneskos, Kurtzes and Rosens out there, is journalism in too much danger of disappearing into its own navel instead of just getting out there and, you know, reporting? Probably not wash your car, more like you're an exception, most our readers are not as smart ;-0 As a consumer, I'm ambivalent about the transparent newsroom. I think it's great for readers to see how decisions are made, and if readers want it then more newsrooms should open up. But I also feel transparency as I do about restaurants. I just want the food delivered to my table, I'm not sure I want to be in the kitchen to watch how it's prepared. Then again I've seen have the news sausage is made. Italy over France 2-1. What makes this war different, among other things, is the willingness of the press to publish war secrets... The press, through its reckless disclosure of secrets, is literally playing with nuclear fire. That is inexcusable. I would say that what makes this "war" fundamentally different from other wars is that we must abuse the word "war" even to make it applicable to whatever the "GWOT" is. Previous adminstrations paved the way way, of course (The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, various "moral equivalents of war," yada yada), but at the beginning of this century it's just all "war," all the time: The Global War on Terror, the War on Christmas, Culture War, not to mention real live shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the American people endorsed an aggressive international anti-terrorism doctrine in 2001. Calling it global war on terrorism was fine back then, but in a practical sense the global "war" on terror has been nothing but clever marketing ever since Tora Bora. Sure, we're told Iraq is somehow an important front in the GWOT, about how we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, but this is damage control, poll-tested Meet-The-Press spin, and after more than three years of real, ugly, inglorious war, the majority of Americans are no longer convinced. What is the GWOT? Well, for some people it's a chance to act out their resolute homefront fantasies ad infinitum. In these people's world, it is forever 1938, they are forever Winston Churchill and anyone who disagrees is simply the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. This is an extremely popular drama for about a third of the population. What is the GWOT? It's a windfall for the defense industry that contracted at the end of the Cold War. Today we're in the middle of spending $2.8 billion to convert four Trident nuclear submarines into stealthy "anti-terrorism" commando platforms. Whatever happened to fiscal sanity? What absurdly expensive retrofit of a politically popular weapons system will we get next? The classified vagueries of the GWOT allow imagination to trump practicality every time. Nineteen guys with box cutters on one very bad day five years ago today equals the impending destruction of Western Civilization by Islamo-fascists, equals "playing with nuclear fire." Right. Welcome to the Department of False Equivalency. So is this classified war really a war? Only if you believe the people with the classified information who say that it is, and we did, back in 2002, back when those same people were telling us to trust them about WMDs and African uranium. Those people lost credibility, but they still demand our trust. Their actions betray them. If it's a real war, then why did we cut anti-terrorism funding to New York City while increasing the amount spent to defend Montana? If it's a real war, why did the administration try to gut the Operation Seahawk port security program? Why are we the only country to color-code our "Terrorism Alert Level" so that any real terrorists will know when we're not paying attention? Is it a classified war? Yes, according to the people running it. In fact, they think it's so classified, so super-secret, so high-stakes that normal checks and balances on government power must be rendered obsolete. Which is why I think that, in addition to arguing about how the media should be covering this classified "war," we should be acknowledging that effective control of the mass media is one of this "war's" unstated objectives. Call it Rollback, call it the Retreat from Empiricism, call it whatever. But listen carefully: the White House is now joining the Noise Machine in telling people that the media is the enemy, on a par with Bin Laden. The tension is being racheted up. Oi vey. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 9, 2006 1:22 PM | Permalink How does a journalist cover a classified war? Well, gee...how does a Wall Street analyst cover a corporation now that the law prohibits corporations from disclosing material information to favored analysts and investors before making it publicly available? Did Wall Street all of a sudden fire every analyst on the books? No. Because only the worst and laziest analysts worked that way. Certain kinds of operations are ALWAYS classified, in real-time, regardless of the war: Cryptography operations and SIGINT. These are classified regardless of the war. It so happens that in this conflict, they are the decisive factor, rather than a supporting or ancillary one. That's simply the nature of this conflict, and the nature of assymetrical warfare in the modern era. The alternative, of course, would be to turn the whole thing into a purely conventional fight. Which would be extraordinarily bloody on a scale not even currently contemplated, orders of magnitude more expensive in terms of money and materiel, infinitely more destabilizing, and far less effective. It would be a stupid idea, of course. But it would make it easier for our precious journalists in the short run. In the long run, though, a lot more of them would be dead. Along with a lot of other people. And every sensitive classified program that's ratted out by irresponsible journalists pushes us towards an inappropriate conventional paradigm. Because every terrorist that is NOT monitored, isolated, identified, or killed as a result of information gained through SWIFT (where even one of our posters here argued there is no expectation of privacy, which destroys the Times' position), or phone data, or what have you, will have to be defeated some other way. And finding him some other way may take longer, and allow him to carry out his murderous plans (or support those who do), or force some security guard with a wife and family at home into a shootout when we could have nailed the rat on ground of our own choosing by picking him up on a routine traffic stop. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 9, 2006 1:24 PM | Permalink And every sensitive classified program that's ratted out by irresponsible journalists pushes us towards an inappropriate conventional paradigm. Because every terrorist that is NOT monitored, isolated, identified, or killed as a result of information gained through SWIFT (where even one of our posters here argued there is no expectation of privacy, which destroys the Times' position), or phone data, or what have you, will have to be defeated some other way.[emphasis not in original] Nice try, Jason; by now most of us have learnt to quickly recognize your too-clever-by-half paraphrases: No 'expectation of privacy' destroys the government's position well before it destroys the Times' position. Firstly, it means that the terrorists know the government is watching, so they are unlikely to try anything stupid. So, there may be a deterrence effect from the surveillance but little entrapment. (in fact if you like the deterrence effect, the Times' story actually helps this by making it known widely that the users of SWIFT are being watched). Secondly, if there is no expectation of privacy, that applies to the government's surveillance as well, and consequently, the Times is free to talk about it publicly. Think radar enforcement on your freeway. There is no expectation of privacy; cops have the right to scan your vehicle's speed and detain you. By the same token, if they are setting speed traps, there is no expectation that discussion on such speed traps is off limits to the public. Same with surveillance cameras in public spaces, subway stations, courthouses etc. But of-course, you knew all this, but thought you'd try a fast one, anyway .... Posted by: village idiot at July 9, 2006 2:18 PM | Permalink Libero's Renato Farina, the journalist-hero of the right (via Laura Rozen): Corriere delicately points out a little inconsistency in journalist-Sismi spy Renato Farina's confession that "I helped Sismi spy on the Milan prosecutor, but I did it to protect Christian Italy from Islamic jihad" defense. That Farina didn't do it for patriotism alone, but for 7,500 Euros in payments from Sismi whose receipts the Italian police discovered in a secret Sismi apartment last week and details of which the Italian papers have now published. So much for love and patriotism, Farina wouldn't do it without $10,000 payment. And as Corriere points out, Farina's defender in Il Foglio publisher and Berlusconi buddy Giuliano Ferrara might look unfavorably if it turned out the journalists publishing stories about the Milan prosecutor's investigation were taking money from him, right? With the exception of Ferrara, even Farina's Italian colleagues on the center-right such as at Corriere don't seem to be sympathetic to his excuses for covertly working on Sismi's payroll while taking his full salary from Libero. Posted by Laura at 09:52 AM [emphasis not in original] Posted by: village idiot at July 9, 2006 3:00 PM | Permalink VI But filtering out the vitriol though, if somebody were to indeed try to flee the Bush dictatorship, why would Cuba be a safe haven??? Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 3:57 PM | Permalink Jay: Regarding the institutional press--the Fourth Estate--you argue that the legitimacy of such a modern invention derives "not from the Founding Fathers but from the opinion of living Americans" that an independent and truthtelling press is vital as a check on government power in a democracy. That is also true about Congress and the Supreme Court, despite the specific check and balance roles spelled out for them in the Constitution as contrasted with the broad protections of the First Amendment. If Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives, do not have the will power to stand up to executive authoritarianism, and their legitimacy is severely discredited in popular opinion to the point where there is no pressure on Congress to act, then the Constitution (Articles I and III) is not very relevant. Ditto, the Supreme Court in its willingness to check runaway power under the rubric of a national security state operating in secrecy; and public expectations that it has the power to do so. There is nothing revolutionary about this argument, unless the goal is to make the President a king. Unlike post-WW II presidential power-- backed up by a vast military and civilian bureaucracy--manifested in the imperial presidency, there is nothing self-executing about legislative OR judicial power. Thus, all the more vital the role of a free press in exposing the underbelly of government. Indeed, as Rosen suggests, the White House strategy for “rolling back” an independent national press is at the center of the “reclamation and expansion of executive branch power.” In “changing the game” on Washington journalists, the Bush/Cheney administration would change the overall balance of power among separated institutions sharing powers, and in the body politic. The Fourth Estate (“the gotcha press”) becomes the lifeblood of free government during a largely classified worldwide war on terror networks. How can the concepts of legislative oversight and judicial review survive, otherwise, against “unreality based” (non empirical) rule? Victory over “facts on the ground” must be denied. Rosen: “Executive privilege [is being] exerted on the terrain of fact itself.” How should an independent press cover a classified war? Full steam ahead with investigative journalism. No less than our Madisonian system of government is at stake. Never forget, the White House, too, is operating on limited knowledge. William E. Jackson, Jr. Posted by: William E. Jackson, Jr. at July 9, 2006 4:02 PM | Permalink Thanks, Bill. FYI... Jackson (who writes a column for E & P) served in the Executive Office of the President under President John Kennedy in 1963. From 1974-77, he was chief legislative assistant to the U.S. Senate majority whip; and was the executive director of President Carter's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, 1978-80. I would say in reply that our entire system depends on certain forms of restraint by key actors who could push things all the way to the breaking point, but usually don't because they are aware that for all our genuflecting to the founders and praise of the Constitution with its "delicate balance," it is a structure that has gaps, contradictions and dead spots, and it cannot resolve final disputes between branches that are called in the document co-equal. Even Bush with his radical and reckless expansion of executive power--which shames every conservative who has not repudiated him yet because there is nothing in the least conservative about it--who has pushed things further toward the breaking point than any modern president, dimly understands this system, and so he did not suggest he would challenge the Supreme Court's recent ruling on detainees. See Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby on that point. But I agree with Daniel Conover that the tension is being racheted up. Wonderful sarcasm, John; excuse me for being a neophyte. So, it is indeed Cuba that you recommend we benchmark ourselves against in identifying dictatorial actions by the US president. First we go to Cuba and experience Fidel's wrath, then we come back to the US and determine if our life feels better. As long as it does, then there is no dictatorship; clear enough. And it figures too, I guess; sort of like saying it is not torture until there is organ failure .... Posted by: village idiot at July 9, 2006 5:32 PM | Permalink Daniel Conover You raise good points which need to be answered. First, this war is unlike any previous war that I know of, because of the combination of the following: -The enemy is diffuse, - the war is really against followers an ideology (Bush finally stated - correctly - that its a war against Islamism, not terrorism). In that sense, it is more like a "war on Naziism." There is no way to point at a nation and say "There's the evil enemy." There are concentrations of mass that are important in this war, but some of enemy may be a "home grown" group next door. Understanding this war requires breaking old habits of thinking, of "connecting the dots" to recognize a radical new threat: -The enemy is willing to sacrifice himself and hundreds of millions of his fellows to achieve his goal. A number of our enemy have stated this at different times. Suicidal individuals with advanced technology are extremely dangerous, as the US learned with Kamikazis - human guided cruise missiles. - The enemy’s goal is conquest of the world for a pre-modern sect of Islam, with religiously authorized savagery and violence. -Weapons of mass destruction are more likely to be available to terrorists than in the past. In the bipolar cold war, nation states with WMD's kept them out of the hands of terrorists for good reasons. Today, failed states like Saddam's Iraq, and crazy states like North Korea and Iran are/were able to acquire or build WMDs, and potentially willing to give them to terrorists. Technology has advanced, making WMDs easier to construct. Oil money available to our enemies allows them to buy expertise and outsource WMD construction (e.g. centrifuge factories in Malaysia). Furthermore, some kinds of chemical and biological weapons can be created by the terrorists themselves, due to advances in biotechnology. Aum Shinrikyo made and released both Anthrax and Sarin. Al Qaeda is likely to be far more successful in the age of the internet and low cost biotechnology. These factors and others (demographic war in Europe?) pose an unprecedented danger. We don't face attack from conventional warfare, or even conventional nuclear warfare - but we face potential devastation from asymmetrical warfare - terrorists armed with WMDs, anonymously aided by rogue nations. ……….. So is this classified war really a war? Only if you believe the people with the classified information who say that it is, and we did, back in 2002, back when those same people were telling us to trust them about WMDs and African uranium. Those people lost credibility, but they still demand our trust. Personally, I don’t let any politician or newspaper define the situation, but you seem to imply that this is only a war if the government, now discredited in your eyes, says it is. Nonsense! As an aside, many of the critiques in this thread imply that those of us attacking the release of secrets are puppets, with Karl Rove pulling our mental strings, rather than independent thinkers - often critical of government policies - who arrive at the same conclusions as the executive. Is that how the left operates? The Administration is hardly unique in declaring this conflict to be a "war." Many people, including myself, immediately said "This is war" when the second aircraft hit the second tower. Currently I am reading an autobiography of a New York cop, and when the 2nd hit happened, the shouts rang out from his break room: "this is war." To us, it was and is obvious. We are faced with a significant new danger, which is a highly brutal asymmetrical warfare waged against us. Some of us have no trouble recognizing a war when it is thrust upon us. Others, apparently, do. It hardly requires access to classified information to see the outline of this war. Our enemies are happy to advertise their intent and capability. They were demonstrating their ruthlessness and organization, targeting us, since the 1979 act of war in capturing the US Embassy in Tehran. They showed it in bombing the Marine Barracks in Beirut (to which Reagan’s reaction was sorely inadequate). They showed it throughout the ‘90s, and they showed it in the barely thwarted plot to bomb LAX at the millenium. Ironically, much of their nature was disclosed by their first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 - when they obviously attempted to kill tens of thousands of people - revealing a change in the goals and attempted scale of Islamist terrorism. 9-11 stands out, not because it was a lucky shot by 19 killers, but because it was the most dramatic and deadly - so far. Back to reporting… This war is not classified. That it exists is obvious. That it has grave potential is obvious if you pay attention to what the enemy is saying, and follow the public information about their global activities and attitudes. The same enemy that set off synchronized bombs in Bangladesh bombed the London subway. Journalists are doing their jobs around the world - providing us the dots to connect. Finally, please don’t let Bushatred or the failure to find WMDs in Iraq confuse you about the enemy. Don’t let the government’s perceived ineptitude in fighting the war mislead you. You may dislike or totally distrust the administration, as is your right. But keep an eye on the enemy as you make editorial decisions. Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 5:37 PM | Permalink Great discussion, folks. It might be wise to consider where we would be had the national press not published stories on abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Haditha, extraordinary rendition, CIA prisons, NSA wiretapping, SWIFT, and other potentially administration-damaging revelations. This would all still be going on -- though away from the watchful eyes of what is supposed to be a responsive democracy. And an increasingly-powerful government would feel even more free to act with impugnity beyond the rule of law. (It is interesting that the Bushists are very concerned about disproving Bin Ladin's assertion that America is a paper tiger that will run when hit -- but not concerned about Bin Ladin's justification of acts of violence against innocents: that all Americans are complicit in the acts of their government because it is a democracy.) To subvert the ludicrous claims of treason (I'd guess a great many Americans really do see press revelations of "classified" programs as damaging to the war on terror, and that this is not just empty right wing noise), the papers might be wise to work to blow the lid off of some terror plots, as well as the plots to totalitarianize the homeland. Or would that endanger journalists? Is that not what Danny Pearl was doing? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at July 9, 2006 5:39 PM | Permalink Jay: I interpreted her statement as "basically, this is a classified war, so how do you expect us to cover it?" I still think it's a good question. I think so, too. Central to the story Sweeney recounts is Byron Price, a former journalist who directed the Office of Censorship during World War II. Rather than threatening the press, Price persuaded journalists to censor themselves in the interests of the nation. Only once during the War, Sweeney reports, did a U.S. journalist deliberately break the censorship code.Historical usage of the phrase (War on Terror) Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 5:48 PM | Permalink Jason Van Steenwyk That's a terrific example of trivialization of the First Amendment. And your contention that I "conveniently omitted that the President also derives his powers from the Constitution," is cute. By your logic, since I didn't quote the Constitution in its entirety, I conveniently omitted ALL of it. My point is that the press has a Constitutionally protected function to perform. So does the president. Let the pieces fall where they may. If the press cannot independently analyize government, even with respect to what the government claims should be classified, what good is the press? Should we obediently bow before government's royal edicts? Or should we cherish our freedom to think critically and act in accordance with that freedom? Daniel Conover Thank you. Posted by: Mark Howard @ News Corpse at July 9, 2006 5:51 PM | Permalink Jay: I would say in reply that our entire system depends on certain forms of restraint by key actors ... That is certainly true. Many of us are asking for more of that restraint by the press. Even Bush with his radical and reckless expansion of executive power--which shames every conservative who has not repudiated him yet because there is nothing in the least conservative about it--who has pushed things further toward the breaking point than any modern president Well, at least we see why the press is so cavalier in dismissing Bush. That opinion is not as widely shared as you would like us to believe, but it certainly gives the press the incentive to beat its breast while hollering its nobility in defeating this evil power grab by spreading our nations secrets far and wide. I almost choked when I read last week's Time editorial which used the silly phrase "speaking truth to power." Sigh. Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 5:53 PM | Permalink Jason: You conveniently omitted that the President also derives his powers from the Constitution. And among these powers is the authority, as chief executive and CinC of the armed forces, to classify documents for the sake of national security. And you conveniently ommitted one argument the press makes: that presidents and others in the federal government frequently classify things they don't want to come out because these things are politically embarrassing, yet they claim it's for reasons of national security, and that damage will be done to the nation if the decision is made to publish. Every time that happens, it is a dangerous misuse of the classification system, and it undermines confidence. Now this reasoning doesn't mean it's carte blanche for the exposure of secrets by journalists because it's certainly not always the case that political embarrassment rather than national security is the concern, or even usually the case... but to my mind the argument cannot be dismissed, either. See, again, Kaiser for cases. From what I can tell of your posts so far you do dismiss it. Is this because you think it doesn't happen? Kaiser and company are lying? Or that Bush and Cheney are such stand-up guys they would never do that? Or it happens once in a while but it's not really a concern because it's so rare? Or the stakes are so high today that you would gladly take some "extra" classification and a few fibs from federal officials over the potential (and incalculable) risks when secrets are spilled? Or what...? By the way, this here post specifically denies that the Constitution gives the press the authority to decide what shall be secret and what shall not. Jay, Can you help me understand the editorial judgement to not only publish classified information, but to do so on the front page? For example, why couldn't the NYT have decided to publish the SWIFT story in the business section as an act of prudence? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 6:17 PM | Permalink I'm sorry, Lisa - and Jay - but the characterization of the media as arrogantly dismissive of the public based on a few conversations isn't convincing. But then, I really have no idea what this 'typical newspaper journalist' looks like. I've been doing this 30 year and I'd never say there weren't character flaws. But I never heard arrogance of the type you describe aimed at readers or some variety of 'those people out there' that dismisses them as too stupid or foolish to understand the news we report. Indeed, the most compelling advice I ever got was from an old boot-strap editor who hammered away that we should never forget the reader. That we are their surrogate. Now clearly that that position is fading fast and there is substantial confusion in journalistic circles - particularly senior editors and publishers about the explosion of ways for those people to both receive and transmit news. And if you don't think that has them in a panic, along with shrinking circulation, 24/7 news and stockholders frantic to hold on to those 15 to 20 percent profit margins, you haven't been reading the same memos. Read almost any professional journalism publication and its filled with articles from managers all aswivet over 'enhanced localism' zoned editions and whatever else the consultants and focus groups say they should try. Internet? Jesus, everyone is trying figure out how to transition to digital news - and generally falling on their face. What gets lost in this? Reporting the news to our readers. I think you're dead on that the current administration doesn't want that, in terms of the current war on terror. How it's being conducted. How it affects the roots of our American experiment. And how much money is being sucked up by the Hoover of Homeland Security. No one elected the media to watch government. It's the price of the 1st Amendment protections. And if the media falter at that job, just as Congress and the Courts abdicate their Constitutional obligations, where do the fans on increased secrecy of how the government SAYS it fights our open-ended and classified wars think that will leave the people? Or do they particularly care? Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 9, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink Tim: "Why couldn't the NYT have decided to publish the SWIFT story in the business section as an act of prudence?" They could have done that, sure. They could have also decided not to publish at all. (I can tell you that if the chairmen of the 09/11 Commission and Rep. Murtha had prevailed upon me not to publish, it would have weighed very heavily on my mind.) Keller and Baquet have said that reasonable people can differ with the judgment call they made, meaning those who would have made a different decision are not, in their minds, being unreasonable or anti-press. Unless, like John Moore and Heather MacDonald, they make reckless and idiotic charges like, "Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans" because it feels so good to say it. Moore, trying to strike a more mature pose, later claimed that he only wished that press would show more restraint. This after accusing the Times of showing no restraint at all, which takes the discussion out of the realm of reasoned disagreement and into the infantile zone. If I had to guess, Tim, why they didn't go with the business section the answers would be: our competitors were chasing it and would front page the story, this is "front page news" (circular, yes, but that never stopped them in the past), and the reporters would go ballistic being denied the front page for a story of national import. If you hide the SWIFT story in the business section, sports or by the obits, then you showed you didn't believe your judgment, you are not standing by your own story. What's the point of spending all of that time reporting, weighing the arguments from the government, decide to publish, yet burying it? Critics of the paper would seize on that placement. No 'expectation of privacy' destroys the government's position well before it destroys the Times' position. Firstly, it means that the terrorists know the government is watching, No it doesn't. That thinking is sloppy beyond measure. One does not follow from the second. First of all, "expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art. It has never meant that the assumption is that the communication is compromised - only that the subject has no right to expect that it will not be. Huge mistake. For example, I can have a conversation with someone in a cafe. I can have no expectation of privacy. I can also work under the assumption that the FBI is not monitoring me. I would do so because I do not believe I am suspected of anything. You are also assuming an efficient information market. That assumption is, quite bluntly, ridiculous. There is no reason to assume that because SWIFT is known to exist doesn't mean so they are unlikely to try anything stupid. Blind conjecture without basis in fact. First of all, people who don't think they're suspected of anything do stupid stuff all the time. We know this from long experience. Criminals are often very stupid. And Al Qaeda draws many of its ranks from among the stupid. We also know that the Treasury Department asked the Times not to publish specifically because it would jeapordize three ongoing investigations. So obviously, your premise that the terrorists already knew we were able to monitor transactions between foreign banks is falsified, not just retroactively by the capture of the Butcher of Bali and at least five others thanks, in part, to the SWIFT monitoring program, but also looking forward as well. After all, if your ridiculous postulate were to be accepted, one would expect precisely zero previous arrests, and precisely zero compromized investigations going forward. Your position is falsified by evidence that is now (wrongly) readily available
Silliness. Deterrence is NOT what we want here. And there had been, and continues to be, "entrapment" (to adopt your misuse of the term.) And why was there "entrapment" [sic]? Because the flow of information to Al Qaeda is deliberately not efficient, and Al Qaeda is not itself an efficient processor and distributor of information. (Indeed, were it to try to become so, it would quickly compromise itself.)
Well, I don't like "the deterrence effect" here. And your resorting to that argument is indicative of the sheer desperation of your position. There is no reason to assume that "deterrence" works to our advantage here. Obviously the professionals didn't think so, or they would have been shouting it from the rooftops from day one. The fact that we were leaning on domestic banks is no secret. But the fact that we had tapped into networks abroad certainly was. And if the relevation deterred anything, it deterred bankers from cooperating with U.S. monitors. Brussels, for example, is "investigating." (If the program were such common knowledge, as the Times asserts, why would there be anything to "investigate?" Secondly, if there is no expectation of privacy, that applies to the government's surveillance as well, and consequently, the Times is free to talk about it publicly. No, it also does not follow. The law specifically prohibits the press from publishing classified information relating to communications intelligence. Bank wires are communications. Show me, in the text of the law, where it provides safe harbor based on an "expectation of privacy" criteria. If you cannot, your assertion is specious. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 9, 2006 7:14 PM | Permalink And you conveniently ommitted one argument the press makes: that presidents and others in the federal government frequently classify things they don't want to come out because these things are politically embarrassing, yet they claim it's for reasons of national security, and that damage will be done to the nation if the decision is made to publish. Let the journo make his or her case; that's what we have juries for. A bit of moral hazard is a healthy thing. Does the public interest outweigh the possibility of prosecution? The alternative is to give the journo a blank check. Which we know, from case law, neither the lawmakers nor the courts have done. In the end, journos are subject to the law in exactly the same way as the rest of us. As it should be. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 9, 2006 7:25 PM | Permalink Much of this discussion strikes me as being a bit above the fray. So let's ask a question which is not above the fray. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 9, 2006 7:27 PM | Permalink I wonder what Al Qaeda is thinking while listening and watching our debate on the SWIFT story? UBL, a video on that topic and on this one please. On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term. If you knew that running a particular story had a high probability of getting one hundred American soldiers killed, what public good--let's have some examples--would justify running it? Presume, for this discussion, that the president is a democrat. Geez, you really think the press would print a story knowing it would definitely put American lives in danger? Editors print these stories because they don't believe it would. Editors have held numerous stories that you don't hear about. Just in the same way we don't hear about real terrorist plots that the government stopped, if revealed might tell terrorists we are on their tracks. This from one of the editors who published the Pentagon Papers. JIM LEHRER: Did you ever run a story that was in that area and then regretted it afterward; that you thought that you might have hurt somebody-- Holding a story for nationa security reasons JIM LEHRER: Ben, what responsibilities do journalist have to protect national security secrets? Some scattered thoughts on what is a very important issue. No, if, it is very important to the intellectual - and every other kind of - growth of this country. The very fundamental point in all this is that today's audience / readers, especially with the rise of the Internet and so many choices, has changed. It can be argued, convincingly, that it is a change for the better. Many more people have a voice now. But what it has done, in my opinion, is made it even more likely that people will drive themselves towards news and ideas they already agree with. So much so that their idea of "news" has changed. There's only so much time in the day and reading about how you're a genius for agreeing with X, Y and Web site Q is much easier. And those who venture onto other sites to disagree very rarely do so with any honest intent that they might change their minds. So when something comes across the wire a person doesn't agree with or approve of, in a very real sense it is NOT news to them and they can vigorously attack the messenger as not reporting "real news." Politicians and government officials come at it from a different direction. In a particular instance they have lost control of the flow of information. Of course, they will demonize those who have obtained some of that control. not always in proportion to the importance of that information. Today, at semmingly no other time, the "people in power" have a vast crowd of supporters who would like nothing better to limit the news they don't agree with. Generalizations all, I realize. Also, I can't understand how the Wall Street Journal remains out of the scope of the critics who think this story should not have seen the light of day. Or to refine that sentiment, I cannot understand how they legitimately remain outside the scope of criticism. That is unless I consider my first "All The News That Fits Me" idea. Hue, It wasn't a "bell". Operation Ivy Bells wasn't a single tap. Bradlee is referring to the tap in the Sea of Okhotsk. The operation was still active in the Barents sea, when Bradlee decided to published. The Soviets found out about the tap in the Sea of Okhotsk from Ronald W. Pelton who sold the location to the Soviets for $35,000. How do you think Woodward found out? Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 9:00 PM | Permalink Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 9:20 PM | Permalink I asked Jason what he thinks of the complication journalists introduce to the issue of publishing classified information when federal officials warn against it. The complication is that presidents and others in the federal government frequently classify things they don't want to come out because these things may prove politically embarrassing. But they claim it's for reasons of national security, and damage will be done to the nation if the decision is made to publish. As far as I can tell, Jason believes that if journalists publish classified information that the govenment says is harmful to national security, they should be prosecuted as a matter of routine policy, and if it turns out that the government just wanted to avoid public embarrassment then juries won't convict. Meanwhile, the knowledge that they will be prosecuted will have a positive and disciplining effect on their decision-making, forcing them to decide whether the story is really a matter of public interest, and whether they are willing to risk it. Do I have that right, Jason? By the way who said the laws of the nation don't apply to journalists? (Jason: "Journos are subject to the law in exactly the same way as the rest of us...") By the way who said the laws of the nation don't apply to journalists? (Jason: "Journos are subject to the law in exactly the same way as the rest of us...") Took the words right out of my computer, Jay. The courts have made it very clear that reporters have no extra-legal rights. Reporters are very clear on that. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 9, 2006 9:37 PM | Permalink Yeah, Hue, I do. To believe otherwise, I have to take the word of journalists. You know. The guys who made up the TANG memo non-story. Who hyped the Alar hoax. But, for whatever reason, I have to take their word for it. They didn't blow a POW rescue op? Oops. They did. In another war, they didn't blow a code-breaking? Oops. Two wars. WW II and the WaPo wrt Beirut. The first case didn't result in any US deaths we know about because the Japs didn't subscribe to the Trib. But, as my sainted mother used to say, "It's the thought that counts, dear." Anyway, you got any proof besides the word of the most interested party? And, yes, let's hear what public good would justify it, presuming, as I say, that the prez at the time is a democrat. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 9, 2006 9:44 PM | Permalink Tim, I admit the only thing I know about Ivy Bells or the entire issue is from that PBS conversation and then from your link above. That is just one example Bradlee cited. We don't know other example of stories held on national security grounds and still not revealed. Journalists can hold on to secrets. The only reason that we know Felt is Deep Throat is that Felt's family let it out. It's remarkable that that remained a secret for 33 years. My point was that journalists aren't as cavalier about national security as its critics claimed they are. It's a debate about judgment, not intentional malice. How do you think Woodward found out? I can't generally tell when you are being ironic or sarcastic. I'm sure as a former Naval officer and through his Watergate reporting, Woodward has Pentagon and intelligence sources. People often assume that stories are handed over on a platter. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they come up while working on other stories. Then they go the sources to verify and or to bluff to get verification. Journalists aren't going to know as much as their sources or some readers. Some times journalists are being used. But motivations of their sources are not as important as whether the facts are true, and whether it truely damages national security. The SWIFT story was not possible without people in the government who felt uncomfortable about the program. Jay: Unless, like John Moore and Heather MacDonald, they make reckless and idiotic charges like, "Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans" because it feels so good to say it. Moore, trying to strike a more mature pose, later claimed that he only wished that press would show more restraint. This after accusing the Times of showing no restraint at all, which takes the discussion out of the realm of reasoned disagreement and into the infantile zone. Sigh. Jay, you know better than that. Do you really think that every word is meant to be taken literally? How silly. .... The Times may very well be exercising restraint, which does not excuse the very real damage they cause. ............... As to prosecuting the press on every leak, in general I think it is a bad idea - there is a reason for prosecutorial disgression. On the other hand, the witch hunt in the Valerie Plame affair causes me to hope that some members of the press are indeed charged - just for balance. They need to feel what an unconstrained prosecutor can do, and it would be a useful lesson for all if some of these felons to be convicted and sent to jail - for they are clearly guilty. Does anyone disagree with the assertion they are guilty of federal felonies? Actually, even without the VP affair, I do advocate the prosecution of some members of the press under espionage, electronic secrets and conspiracy statutes. Then we have the following "justification" for publishing government secrets: I...the complication journalists introduce to the issue of publishing classified information when federal officials warn against it. The complication is that presidents and others in the federal government frequently classify things they don't want to come out because these things may prove politically embarrassing... While exposing embarrassment is a great blood sport, a much stronger justification is required if there is any significant chance that the publication will harm the nation. I do not see that justification. If, for example, Bushitler was using the NSA foreign wiretaps against political opponents, then there might be a case for exposing them. Note the word "might" - even misbehavior by government officials does not automatically justify the publication of secrets. So which of the blown secrets involved the Administration's political abuse of Americans? Who suffered harm sufficient to justify these actions? Furthermore, what is the justification for frequent violation of US Laws? The newspapers seem to be acting as vigilantes - violating laws in order to expose wrongdoers. Shall we encourage vigilanteeism in our society? Does the press believe it now has a duty to employ vigilantees? Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 9:53 PM | Permalink And if the Soviet found out about the Sea of Okhotsk, then you don't think they checked their other cables? "... a national security state operating in secrecy." That's a chillingly Orwellian description, Bill, but, then, these are Orwellian times, so far be it from me to quibble. What with an (until recently) utterly compliant press, an (until recently) utterly compliant Supreme Court and a still-compliant Congress dominated by the worst sort of toadies, lickspittles and showboaters, that's pretty much what it has all devolved into. Me, I see the recent snapping awake by the most enterprising members of the national press as a fourth-quarter attempt to get back in the game. It's almost as if someone administered smelling salts to the snoozing athlete. At this point, it's a long shot -- but sometimes fourth-quarter rallies actually equalize the terms of engagement. And once in a rare while they even prevail. At any rate, welcome aboard. Press Think could use someone who's been-there-done-that. That's an addition infinitely preferable to just one more armchair general, either of the left or the right. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2006 9:55 PM | Permalink John Moore -- It is of incalculable value that you remind us (twice) that we shouldn't take anything you say "literally." For the dimmer among us -- among which I count myself -- hereafter could you do us the favor of either preceding or footnoting each bizarre post with the words "Just kidding, folks!" ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2006 10:09 PM | Permalink John Moore is now claiming that he was kidding--or maybe using a metaphor?--but in any event not trying to be serious when he launched his idiotic charge that "today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans." (Which would have been treason, of course.) He says I am being silly for not realizing that he didn't really mean it. Well, here it is in context. Readers can decide for themselves whether he meant it or not... The founders and the Constitution envisioned a healthy and free press. But no government can protect the rights of its people if it cannot protect them or itself from attack. To be dead is to not have freedom of speech. Sounds pretty serious to me, John. I don't believe for a second that you were kidding, or trying to be unserious. I think you knew full well that in the furor of the past few weeks things exactly like this--treason! there's nothing they won't do!--were being said about the Times, and you wanted to associate yourself with those remarks because it felt so good to express the rage that way. I think you wanted to put yourself in Heather MacDonald's camp and argue that The Times is “so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.” And you did. The Times is so far gone it would have published George Washington’s war plans. That's what you meant to say, that is what you said. Everyone who read it got the point. But now you can't defend what you said, so you're trying to worm out of it. That's pretty low, John. Steve, what scares me is the possibility that you intend for us to take all of your writing literally. By the way, do you think that we should continue to have a vigilantee press? Rosen writes: Moore, trying to strike a more mature pose, later claimed that he only wished that press would show more restraint. I guess I should be honored that the mindreading skills of Professor Rosen should be turned on me as they are so frequently turned on the Bush administration. It would be interesting if, instead of nitpicking, participants here would actually address the subject of repeated feloneous behavior by members of the press. What message does that send, Jay? Is it moral? Ethical? Is it the right thing to do? Do you think the reporters should be prosecuted? If so, under what conditions - if not, why not? Reporting on a classified war so far has involved the commission of numerous felonies by a vigilantee press. Shouldn't we discuss the subject in that framework? For that matter, how should these issues be addressed in the SPJ's Code of Ethics - or does that code matter? Posted by: John Moore at July 9, 2006 10:34 PM | Permalink Raising questions about your statement, "Today’s New York Times would have published George Washington’s war plans, I’m afraid" isn't nitpicking, John. And if you think it is, then you are even more deluded than your original run-with-the-mob statement was. Steve, what scares me is the possibility that you intend for us to take all of your writing literally. -- John Moore. Umm, John: Strange as it might seem to you, who apparently does not want any of his writings taken literally, I actually do hope that mine are. By the way, do you think that we should continue to have a vigilantee [sic] press? -- John Moore. You betcha. And since a court of law has yet to determine that "numerous felonies" have been committed by a single member of the press reporting on the affairs in question, that phrase belongs not in a serious post at this blog or any other, but only in the fervid imagination of one John Moore. Learn the difference. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 9, 2006 10:53 PM | Permalink Jay, give us a break with your faux-outrage. It is a lame way of dodging John's substantive points. As if you've never engaged in any rhetorical hyperbole because it felt good. And here in this thread we have adolescent invocations of Orwell, and authoritarianism, and "King" George. Village Idiot lives in a fantasy world in which American citizens are being disappeared off the streets. Historical precedents of other wartime presidents such as FDR, Wilson, or Lincoln are ignored, but we're supposed to take advice from Jimmy Carter's arms control advisor! (How's that SALT II coming, Bill?) In the original post, Jay defined the "storm" in terms of the following dichotomy: If you don’t trust for a moment the judgment or solemn word of the Bush Administration But it is clear -- not only from this debate, but from the last five tumultuous years -- that the actual dichotomy is between those who perceive Al Qaeda as the greater threat, or Bush. Bush-hater par excellence Jonathan Chait makes the point explicitly this weekend. This, too, is not without precedent. In every American war, there is always a coalition of ostriches, paranoids, and America-haters who oppose the President more than our enemies. Some in the South still feel Lincoln was a tyrant. America First-ers such as Lindbergh believed that FDR was a greater threat to our liberties than Hitler ever was. Opposing NATO, Robert Taft said the same of Truman. Same with nuke-freezers like Helen Caldicott vs Reagan. And John Kerry, who I believe served in Vietnam, stated essentially that the American government and forces were worse than the VC or NV, whom he estimated would not commit massacres upon taking power. You may not have noticed, but these voices are always proven wrong. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 9, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink [Sigh] Anyone know how this turned out? Has the result of the investigation been reported?
Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink "Hypnotized" by the Washington Times Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 9, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink Well, thanks Jay, for this mostly illuminating thread. But it's over now. With John Moore asserting his delusionary "repeated felonious behavior" when there has never been a finding of such, and Neuro-conservative taking purely partisan pot shots with references to "America-haters who oppose the President more than our enemies," and people bothering to respond to their irrelevant diatribes, the stimulating academic discussion the rest of us were having has concluded - for me, anyway. These apologists for government powergrabs can't see past their political prejudices to concede that official misconduct occurs all the time, and a vigilant (not vigilante) press is our best defense. The press has a role to play in covering war, classified or otherwise. We ought to be able to discuss the boundaries of that role, but some would rather leave it to the Politburo. I can't wait for your next essay. They are always thought provoking and stimulating. Thanks again. Posted by: Mark Howard @ News Corpse at July 9, 2006 11:49 PM | Permalink Tim, let's consider that the July 2002 Times story was notably weak on specifics -- where the hell else would the US invade Iraq from the the north, west and south, with thousands of soldiers? And that it was based on a military planning report. The Times report, as a later Post story (ref'd in the CJR site you gave), suggests that the stories served the purposes of both letting Middle Eastern governments that we were hoped we'd not have to invade Iraq while warning Saddam that we'd come if we had to. Consider the very good likelihood that the sources of these stories were the DOD leadership or the White House, since the information served their purposes of walking gingerly AND carrying a big stick. Yes, I know, the White House sicced the AF Office of Special Investigations to find the leaker. Not much came of that, did it? If so, should the press publish classified material, specifically war plans? If it came through the White House, does that make it right, especially since this wasn't an official declassification. Obviously, it's just speculation, since we may never know what really happened in this case. But at least it's not reckless as shouting 'treason' or making comparisons however clumsily, as NRO did with D-Day and the potential breech of security of with the London Daily Telegraph's crossword puzzle. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 10, 2006 12:01 AM | Permalink Buh-bye, Mark. Have fun with your George W. Bush Voodoo Doll, now. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 10, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink [Request: a separate thread sometime in future (or a still-open thread from the past?), where discussion of Lisa's and Jay's comments above (July 9, 02:06 AM and 11:46 AM, on extant-j's double-edged doubts about cit-j's capabilities) would be on topic] Posted by: Anna Haynes at July 10, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink Tim, The SWIFT leak is not sanctioned, bad for national security? From that July 5, 2002, Times story, (password needed): The existence of the document that outlined significant aspects of a ''concept'' for a war against Iraq as it stood about two months ago indicates an advanced state of planning in the military even though President Bush continues to state in public and to his allies that he has no fine-grain war plan on his desk for the invasion of Iraq. Then again, we had no concrete plans to attack Iraq in May 2002? CHANCELLOR SCHROEDER: I have taken notice of the fact that His Excellency, the President, does think about all possible alternatives. But despite what people occasionally present here in rumors, there are no concrete military plans of attack on Iraq. And that is why, for me, there is no reason whatsoever to speculate about when and if and how. I think such speculation should be forbidden. That, certainly, is not the right thing for a Chancellor. And I am in this position. How did the invasion turn out, the one didn't we didn't have concrete plans for? Mission Accomplished? Jay I raise all sorts of serious issues, and you insist on trying to read my mind. You waste an entire long post on it. Does that have anything to do with the issue of covering a classified war? Could it be that you are unable to answer the many substantive issues raised? Here’s a list, for your review. Some I can defend much more strongly than others: -anonymous unauthorized leakers of classified information are behaving in an anti-democratic manner -the press is abetting this anti-democratic criminal activity -the press is committing felonies, repeatedly violating national security laws, and conspiring with others to do so -in doing so, the press is acting as vigilantes, per defensive motivations asserted here -the Supreme Court has held that the press does not enjoy immunity from prosecution for these felonies -the press is doing so without (at least in most cases) having shown harmful abuses of the disclosed programs -contrasting the press behavior with the Valerie Plame affair with its behavior regarding other leaks suggests to many of us that partisan motives are at work -the press, even though it seeks legitimacy, is not behaving well enough to be regarded as responsible American citizens -the excuse that the SWIFT revelations revealed nothing to terrorists presumes knowledge on the part of terrorists that you don’t have -in wartime, dramatic sacrifices may be necessary in the name of secrecy -the press too often covers events in Washington from a cynical viewpoint which admits only political and personal motives -one need not be a supporter of Bush to object to the willy-nilly publication of secrets -9-11 demonstrated an important change in the state of the world and the type of war unleashed upon us -that this war is indeterminate in length is not the fault of the administration, and is no excuse for releasing secrets -authorized leaks do not excuse unauthorized leaks of classified information -should the TPFKATA publish the names and private information of the NYT members the way the Times publishes the secrets of our government? -members of the press apparently hate the administration so much that they do not consider it legitimate, and hence have few qualms about damaging the war efforts -this war is unlike any previous war I know of for (reasons given) -one need not rely on government statements to know if we are in a war -some members of the press should be prosecuted (for the release of secrets) -newspapers seem to be acting as vigilantes -abuse of secret programs might be a case for exposing them -how should the issues of felonious press behavior be addressed in the SPJ Code of Ethics? Steve Lovelady You exhibit a common fallacy. That a court has not adjudicated these felonies does not mean an assertion of them is wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle only. If you think they are innocent, it would be better to provide your reasoning. There is ample evidence (unless the press is lying to me) - it is a felony to publicize certain kinds of information, and the New York Times published it. Now either a genie popped out of a bottle to operate the computer, the material was not classified, or human beings at the Times committed felonies. Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 1:26 AM | Permalink Oh, NC - welcome to the fray. Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 1:26 AM | Permalink John Moore, History test What is factually wrong with the following statement?: They were demonstrating their ruthlessness and organization, targeting us, since the 1979 act of war in capturing the US Embassy in Tehran. They showed it in bombing the Marine Barracks in Beirut (to which Reagan’s reaction was sorely inadequate). They showed it throughout the ‘90s, and they showed it in the barely thwarted plot to bomb LAX at the millenium. The problem is that you have lumped together several different "theys" that have no connection to one another other than your ignorance or lack of interest in distinguishing one Muslim from another. In your fevered mind, these completely unrelated "theys" are in a conspiracy against us! It's OK John, you can relax now. The first "they" were Shiite nationalists in Iraq overthrowing the Shah who was installed by the CIA in place of their democratically elected Iranian president, Mossadegh (Why can't anyone in the Middle East aside from Israel manage to build a democracy again?), primarily because big oil was unhappy about nationalization (watch out Hugo Chavez). The "they" involved in the LAX bomb plot were the Sunni Wahabbists of Al-Qaida who would rather shoot Shiites than talk to them because they consider them idolators. They want to wipe the Shia from the pages of history. Given that the central issue in Iraq is a civil war between Shia and Sunnis, in the current context your ignorance or disinterest in distinguishing Shia from Sunni is like not bothering with the difference between Protestants and Catholics in the French War of Religion. They're all Christians, damn'em all to hell. You are still fighting the crusades. Thanks for the more specific confession of the ignorance your diatribes are routinely grounded in. Sadly your ignorance is shared at the highest levels of the Cheney administration. If the Cheney administration's implementation of your ignorance doesn't serve to unify sworn enemies like the Sunnis and the Shia against us, it will be no thanks to you and your boys in the Cheney administration--no thanks to the triumph of classification over facts on the ground. Am I glad Seymour Hersh has been spilling the beans that idiots like you are busy hatching what passes for US foreign policy out of their fevered and ignorant imaginations (and those of the American Enterprise Institute)? Hell, yes. Has he been fighting an uphill battle against the collaboration of the institutional press such as the Washington Post and the New York Times with the Cheney administration from the start? Hell, yes. How should the press begin to recover the legitimacy they've surrendered with their collaboration in the information war against the American people in 2003? How should they cover a war involving information classified by people living in John Moore's fantasy world where the spectre of civil war between Sunni and Shia morphs into a conspiracy of all Muslims against the US? The first necessary step would be to consult a reference or two on Middle Eastern history, religion, and politics. The second step would be to draw the logical inference from what they would learn from those references--learn to tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and stop listening to militant idiots like John Moore and his fellow travelers in the Cheney administration. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 2:08 AM | Permalink That's quite a rant, Mark A. Too bad it is oversimplified. There is a lot more to the issue than Shia vs Sunni. For example, in Iran there are both Arabs and Persians. That is a source of conflict. In Iraq, clan ties are often as important as religious affiliation. The relationship of Iranian Shia and Iraqi Shia is complex. Marriages between Sunnis and Shia are not uncommon in Baghdad. The Islamist philosophies (which you apparently incorrectly equate with Islamic theology) are both Shia and Sunni. Even though Sunni and Shia have been at odds since the founding of Islam, they cooperate (with friction) in the new Islamist jihad. Who do you think supplies the modern IED's to the Sunni terrorists? Yep - the Shiite Persians. Who else supplies aid to the bad guys in the "Sunni triangle?" Yep - the secular Baathists of Syria. Who has goals for replacing the world's governments with Sharia theocracies? Both. But others have had the same confusion - many thought that Al Qaeda would not cooperate with Iran because Al Qaeda is Salafist and Iran is Shia. Oops... not true, as we now know. They thought Al Qaeda would not cooperate with the Iraqi Baathists because they were secular - oops. Wrong again. Zarqawi enjoyed Baathist hospitality in Baghdad before our invasion, and enjoyed lots of Baathist support afterwards. Oops again. Secular (but sorta Sunni) Saddam had intelligence contacts with Al Qaeda years before 9-11. Now we could go back to your over-simplistic two party world, and look at the war on terrorism that way. Wonderful. THen have two enemies, both of whom use suicide tactics and both of which want to replace the world with an Islamic Califate - Iranian Shiites and Sunni Islamists including Al Qaeda. Does that make you feel better? It's simpler, so I suspect you will enjoy it. Finally, a little parable about the Middle East... A scorpion and a camel were at the edge of a river. The scorpion asked the camel to carry him across the river. The camel replied "But why should I do that? You will sting me and I will die." The scorpion responded "But then I would drown. I won't do that." The camel acquiesced, the scorpion climbed on his back, and the camel started swimming the river. Part way across, the scorpion stung the camel. The dying camel said "Why did you do that! We will now both drown!" The scorpion replied "It's the middle east, stupid." The problem with your theory is that it is overly simplistic. You've learned that there are Shia and Sunnis in the middle east, and that there is a long history of violent disagreement between them. Congratulations, you now have a factoid and are therefore an expert. You might even get extra points if you know that the Wahhabis are a small sect of the Sunnis who are at the heart of Al Qaeda. You get extra credit if you can explain the relationship between the Royal Family of SA and the Wahhabis - and how the princes get away with drinking alcohol, for example. Then you can perhaps explain the relationship of The Muslim Brotherhood, Zawahiri, Wahhabiism, Baathism and Al Qaeda. There is an old principle which you apparently don't know: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Guess what! The Islamists know it. So before you launch any more diatribes based on the assumption of ignorance, you might refine your own knowledge a bit more. Oh, and by the way - the CIA's emplacement of the Shah is really irrelevant these days, but I'm not surprised that you throw it in - it is such fun to show how evil America is - right? Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 3:03 AM | Permalink John Moore, I said in my own post, before you tried to correct me with my own ideas, that if the US attacks both Shia and Sunni long enough we will manage to facilitate alliances between them. Voila, the Cheney administration does make the realities we all have to live with. Success, neoconservative style! Simplicity indeed. I think Bob Dylan said it best, "There's no success like failure and failure's no success at all." Enough jousting with neocon windmills for the night. God bless the reporters and editors who have to negotiate with idiots like you everyday for a living. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 3:59 AM | Permalink Fishing For A Pretext to Squeeze Iran A final issue between Iran and the United States that might explain the escalating rhetoric over nonexistent nukes is Iraq. The United States is bogged down in a quagmire there, fighting militant Sunni Arabs. But it has also seen its political plans for Iraq checked on several occasions by the rise of powerful Iraqi Shiite parties, such as the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Dawa Party and the Sadr Movement. Iran hosted SCIRI and Dawa in exile in the Saddam years, and has close relations with them. There are allegations that it gives them money. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 4:14 AM | Permalink House Republicans are now concerned that the quality and intensity of the Cheney administration's previous commitment to disinformation by way of the classification state may be waning. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 4:48 AM | Permalink Arther Silber: So once you're debating what the intelligence shows or fails to show, the debate is over. The war will inevitably begin. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 6:25 AM | Permalink Being a common newspaper reader I am disapponted that the media are always manipulating its audience. They claim to be open and deliver the timely information from the first hands. But they hardly do it without the government consent. I doubt that there will be an edition that will be 100 % honest with the public. I am not sure if we need it, but still being informed about real state of affairs you do not feel yourself like a donkey. Posted by: research papers' guru at July 10, 2006 7:03 AM | Permalink History is relative. We remember the embassy hostage crisis. They remember the CIA involvement with Mossadegh. Mark Anderson: Authoring five out of six posts in a thread is not cool. Please don't do it again. Well, the big name journalism deans have weighed in. See When in Doubt, Publish by Geoffrey Cowan of USC, Alex S. Jones of Harvard's Kennedy School, John Lavine of Northwestern, Nicholas Lemann of Columbia, and Orville Schell of Berkeley (July 9). Some quotes: It is the business -- and the responsibility -- of the press to reveal secrets. Schell is also a PressThink author, see his J-Schools Have to Get More Involved from July, 2005. This new piece is an example of what he meant. Sigh. I'm glad the five men spoke up in a situation of some urgency, and I would like to see more of that. I wish their statement added something to what has already been said in defense of the press, but alas...it does not, tracking closely with the letters from Keller and Baquet, and never deviating from the consensus view in journalism, in which "that's a difficult balance to strike..." is supposed to represent the agony of thought. Some would say originality is too much to hope for with discourse by committee. Probably so. But I'm also glad I didn't have to decide whether to sign this statement. Has the storm passed? Jay Rosen: Who is in charge of the war on terror? Who has operational authority? I have no idea. Do you know? One suspects it is Cheney. Was it ever announced? National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 10:56 AM | Permalink Yes, Tim -- the storm has passed. It was a close call, but Mark Anderson managed to bury John Moore's list of substantive points. Fortunately, Jay can now pretend he didn't notice them. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 10, 2006 11:03 AM | Permalink I agree with much of what you stated here, Neuro Con. Many stories, editorial decisions, and op-eds in papers like the NYT and LATimes make much more sense if you view their POV as being based on the belief that this administration and its decisions present very grave threats to us, perhaps more than anyone/anything on the outside. Some of it appears ideological but I also think that that it’s simply easier (in the practical sense), in our open society, to get information that confirms that POV. You can “prove” just about anything if you have access to lots of data. I’m sure it’s difficult in Iran or Egypt to “prove” that Israel may have legitimate grievances, for example. The question for me is a simple one, and I like how Jay presented it at the beginning of this piece. I need raw data. I need analysis. I need “news interpretation.” Where do I go? What will make a news source “legitimate” for me? Some examples (in no particular order, perhaps not the best, and sorry not a lot of links) ….. Independence I didn’t like that whole Armstrong Williams thing, and I don’t take much stock in what George Stephanopoulos, ex-Clinonite, says on his news reports. I also don’t like seeing that reporters contribute to the campaigns of politicians and then write about political issues. I also want reporters who are independent from MSM group think, their own “peoples in charge.” That problem’s on its way to being solved, thank god, since you can report on your own blog. But, since it’s often difficult to be completely independent ... You damn well better be ... Transparent And tell me up front about any potential conflicts of interest. Dana Priest’s story about the NSA prisons was weakened for me when I read about her and her husband’s ties to people like Joe Wilson and Mary McCarthy. Even if only a small amount of that info was correct, it should have been revealed earlier and responded to. My gosh, that kind of stuff just gives more credence to the belief that reporters and politicians and special interests are all in bed with each other. Another example of independence/transparency gone awry... I also want to see original documents, entire interviews, and names of the sources used. I was glad that the NYT linked to the original Hoekstra letter in this story, for example. It gave me the chance to see more than only what the reporter thought was important. That ultimately makes me trust the reporter/paper more (in theory, at least, maybe actually not yet but it’s a start and I’m open minded so who knows). Verification It goes without saying that your facts have to be accurate, but I’ve been waiting to see the corrections and ombudsman sections of newspapers expanded to full sections and given as much space as “Food” or “Cars,” for crying out loud. Good Grief. I hate reading a tiny correction on the last page several days later of a story that was entirely premised on incorrect data to begin with. Don’t even bother. I’m also waiting for the NYT, WaPo, USAToday, LATimes, someone else to pick up on the translated Iraq docs that the Captain has been reporting on so I can get separate verification on those (I agree with you there, Richard.). I like to verify stories from more than one "outlet" but I’ll be waiting forever, I’m sure. And on the topic of editorial decisions that would make me trust papers like the NYT more ... ? Well, it would be the opposite of this: If I had to guess, Tim, why they didn't go with the business section the answers would be: our competitors were chasing it and would front page the story, this is "front page news" (circular, yes, but that never stopped them in the past), and the reporters would go ballistic being denied the front page for a story of national import. ---Jay I’m sure that’s an accurate assumption but no less untrustworthy. The bottom line.... Accept that reasonable people agree that we need an active and agressive legitimate press, even in time of war. The debate of whether this war is classified or not is necessary but slightly off-track. If we had as legitimate a press as we need, one we could all (heck, I'd settle for most) trust at least as much as the government, we'd be at a different place in the debate. That's what's really scary, actually, if you think about it. How do we get it? And fast? That's the real problem. Posted by: Kristen at July 10, 2006 12:16 PM | Permalink Kristen, a few questions: Independence: Let’s see: You don’t like the idea of reporters making political contributions while reporting on politics. Should they be able to vote as well? Apparently, you believe blog news providers are more independent from ‘group think’ than mainstream ones. Should bloggers also refrain from making political contributions? Transparency: Though Dana Priest’s NSA prisons story had nothing to do with Valerie Plame or weapons of mass destruction myths, I gather your point is that reporters shouldn’t know people who irritate you. Or whose politics is in error. Fine. We’ll now append the names of all friends, family and acquaintances and their ideological bent to the entirety of notes, interview transcripts and, sources of the story. By deadline. A little unwieldy perhaps, but what the heck. Verification: Improving the accuracy of facts is a worthy goal. And there is certainly a lot more that could be done with the corrections page. But to say you want to see the corrections/ombudsman role extended to a full section suggests you’ve forgotten an essential truth of the media: It’s a business. “Food” and “Cars” sections bring in ad revenue. Corrections do not. For crying out loud. Mind you, after all this time; the calculus of making the front page remains a mystery to me. But if you truly think competition, reporter ego and the scale of importance of a story aren’t some of the reasons a report winds up on Page 1A, you don’t understand newspapers. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 10, 2006 1:02 PM | Permalink Dana Priest’s story about the NSA prisons was weakened for me when I read about her and her husband’s The facts in Priest's story hasn't weakened (no matter how much anyone reads about her or her husband's ties). The prisons did exist, the government didn't dispute that. Dave, you’re unwittingly providing us with a perfect example of Lisa Williams’ “don’t make me change” newsman. Here’s you, paraphrased…. Waaaahhhh. It’s not fair….. I should be able to have perceived conflicts of interest that weaken my argument and still got the respect I deserve, dammit. I demand to be trusted. I demand it. Waaaaah. We have to write stories and make editorial decisions based on our business interests but we demand not to be judged as if we have no other interests. Waaaahh. It’s not fair…. not fair… not fair…. We’re protected specifically in the Constitution, dammit, but we’re a simply a business. Waaaahhh. In the words of a famous crime fighter you sound like, this is what you're saying to your audience: “I can’t hear you with these ear muffs on.” And you know what else? I’d rather be a citizen accused of not understanding newspapers than reporters being accused of not understanding trust and what makes their audience trust what they write. Posted by: Kristen at July 10, 2006 1:44 PM | Permalink You need to work on your paraphrase skills, Kristen. I wasn't saying pity the poor journalist. I was saying you don't know what you're talking about. Posted by: Dave In Texas at July 10, 2006 2:00 PM | Permalink Jay, As far as I can tell, Jason believes that if journalists publish classified information that the govenment says is harmful to national security, they should be prosecuted as a matter of routine policy, and if it turns out that the government just wanted to avoid public embarrassment then juries won't convict. Meanwhile, the knowledge that they will be prosecuted will have a positive and disciplining effect on their decision-making, forcing them to decide whether the story is really a matter of public interest, and whether they are willing to risk it. Yep, that's pretty close. Prosecutorial discretion would figure into it as well, of course. But the risk of prosecution for violations of the law should be very real - and penalties should be significant enough to outweigh any competive advantage news publishers could get by scooping the competition. One factual corrections: Valerie Plame was not, by any definition, a "covert officer," as the good professors assert. The law is very specific - it had been more than five years since her last covert post. It was not a crime to reveal her identity. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 2:50 PM | Permalink NC... you blew it. Sarcasm is misunderstood here. Were I to follow Jay's nit-picking principle, thohgh, I'd start with "Though Dana Priest’s NSA prisons story...". The problem with this statement, repeated by two commentators here, is left as an exercise to the reader. When in Doubt, Publish - when in doubt, shoot. Except in this case, the number of possible casualties is dramatically higher. This shows that at least some J-school deans are as irresponsible as the NYT. They mouth platitudes about responsibility, and then advocate publishing secret information even when in doubt. Tellingly, they also state: There are situations in which that chance should not be taken. For instance, there was no justification for columnist Robert D. Novak to have unmasked Valerie Plame as a covert CIA officer. I guess it's important to tell the world about an ongoing, successful program to catch terrorists (SWIFT), but there's no justification for reporting the potential nepotism involved in the selection of the media's primary source on a major WMD issue - a hero, apparently, for his tea time in Niger, and his reports that Saddam was not searching for WMD's in Africa. Personally, I wouldn't have published Valerie Plame's identity either - it was unnecessary to convincingly demonstrate Wilson's total lack of credibility. However, the selective outrage of these J-school deans is demonstrative of the bizarre logic used in deciding the very damaging release of national secrets. Mark A You once again prove yourself impervious to fact--Zarqawi was in the northern part of Iraq in the No Fly Zone controlled by Britain and the US, not "enjoying hospitality in Baghdad" as the INC would have you believe. Zubaydah's testimony has since been further corroborated by a known al Qaeda ideologue, Dr. Muhammad al-Masari. Al-Masari operated the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights, a Saudi oppositionist group and al Qaeda front, out of London for more than a decade. He told the editor in chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi that Saddam "established contact with the 'Afghan Arabs' as early as 2001, believing he would be targeted by the U.S. once the Taliban was routed." Furthermore, "Saddam funded al Qaeda operatives to move into Iraq with the proviso that they would not undermine his regime." Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 2:57 PM | Permalink Valerie Plame was not, by any definition, a "covert officer," as the good professors assert. The law is very specific - it had been more than five years since her last covert post. It was not a crime to reveal her identity. There was a crime in revealing her identity, otherwise the Justice Department would not have investigated. Fitzgerald isn't making an inquiry into whether a crime was committed. No crime, no special prosecutor. Otherwise Libby wouldn't have been indicted for statements made. "Corrections do not. For crying out loud." If the correction was big enough it could make money. Think out of the box. Added to the Huffington Post version of this piece: Also involved is a tendency noticed by Paul Krugman, who said this in a 2004 interview with Buzzflash: For four years now, some of us have been saying, whether or not you think they're bad guys, they're certainly radical. They don't play by the rules. You can't take anything that you've regarded as normal from previous U.S. political experience as applying to Bush and the people around him. They will say things and do things that would not previously have made any sense -- you know, would have been previously considered out of bounds. Now if you actually tried to render this situation in news coverage, the journalism you'd end up doing would also be considered out of bounds, not by Bush supporters but by journalists themselves. New rules would have to be devised for covering radicals in the White House who are trying to roll back the press, vastly expand executive power, evade normal oversight. The adjective "conservative" would become inaccurate for describing Bush and his team, and its routine use would have to be discouraged. There would be no way to describe the resulting changes in practice--from the old system used in covering Bush the elder and Clinton to the new rules necessary for Bush the younger--as merely "editorial" rather than "political." And no matter what they tell you, fear of looking "too political" is a constant for denizens of the newsroom, an internalized warning system that's second nature to most. It's not Hugh Hewitt's voice they hear, but their own. In a word, it would take balls too big for the press to react in proportion to what Bush and company are actually doing. Mainstream political journalism is a system that falls apart when deviant or radical behavior overtakes centers of power. It isn't capable of throwing out the playbook when confronted with a new threat, because it doesn't have any other playbook and it can't stop the presses long enough to work one out. Once this pattern sets in, denial comes with it. That's how you get "What isn't new here seems more significant than what is." That's why we have an op-ed from Keller and Baquet that talks about "tension" between government and press but mysteriously fails to mention the Bush strategy of de-certifying, attacking and polluting the press with misinformation. And that was supposed to be their effort to fight back! Journalists are very alarmed by the current campaign against the Times, and for good reason. But even deeper than their sense of alarm is the desire to believe that an old operating system, based on what they have "regarded as normal from previous U.S. political experience," can handle the new data. The countervailing thought--that it can't--just fries their circuits. This solution doesn't work, but it would be too expensive, too messy, and above all "too political" to come up with a better one. So political journalists stick with what they know, and look with awe at the fury directed against them. If the correction was big enough it could make money. Only to the lawyers, Tim. Only the lawyers. Posted by: Dave Mclemore at July 10, 2006 3:19 PM | Permalink How to cover a classified war is a great question. Too bad Jay doesn't really offer much clarity for answers. Jay publishes the Letter of the 5 -- "if in doubt, publish!" In the Bush vs. Terrorists war, there are 4 possible views: pro-Bush & anti-Bush; pro-terrorist & anti-terrorist. Bush and most conservatives have long known the MSM would spend most of their limit front page in the anti-Bush quadrant (how much discussion of the tax-cut economic "miracle" -- low unemployment+low inflation+17 straight quarters of growth? Not front page, too "pro-Bush). Given this expected bias, it's reasonable to practice rollback -- which is reasonable to expect to produce stronger anti-Bush sentiment. Is it possible for the NY Times to help the terrorists? Jay, is that a possibility? I'm convinced it's possible. How would one know if the US press was helping the terrorists? I think monitoring Al Queda web sites, and seeing if the NYT was quoted, might be one way; not certain. I'm certain publishing US secrets helps the terrorists; in recruitment, in morale, in belief that the US public will give up. Help for the terrorists means more terrorists, more people murdered by terrorists; even more Americans murdered by terrorists. As I've said before, the NYT is an ally of those killing American soldiers in Iraq. I remain outraged. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 10, 2006 4:28 PM | Permalink When, where, who I trust …. I consume. Even (and especially) if it costs me extra time or money to do so. As much as I love to start my morning reads in a certain order (e.g, this month it’s usually Drudge, CNN, WaPO, Powerline, Captain’s Quarters, Malkin, Kos, Slate, etc.), it’s never permanent. I look for quality, transparency, verified data, independence. If I could go to an online NYT or WaPo and see an entertaining clearinghouse of the critiques and sidebars to the previous day’s or week’s stories, believe me I’d consume that every day in a flash. What if the NYT in a “Ongoing Stories" section (which also includes critiques and corrections) on the Hoekstra story linked to the “JustOneMinute” analysis piece I referred to earlier. Now that would be efficient for me and my time. And it would build my trust because it would show me that the NYT isn’t afraid and it’s actually risking something to truly look out for me. I’m convinceable if I trust you. I’m deaf to you if I don’t. Partisans will say, “Oh no, people only believe what reinforces what they already think….” Sorry, I’ve never bought into that. I think most reasonable people are persuadeable to some degree on most issues. If you want to convince me that being in Iraq is bad (or good), that secret NSA prisons are bad (or good), that there’s never been any WMDs, not nohow not noway, that all wars are classified to some extent (or not), that, really, Bush has so radicalized the world that everyone should focus their energy on strategies for combating that (or him) .... .... you gotta first get me to trust you. Posted by: Kristen at July 10, 2006 4:43 PM | Permalink There was a crime in revealing her identity, otherwise the Justice Department would not have investigated. Fitzgerald isn't making an inquiry into whether a crime was committed. No crime, no special prosecutor. Otherwise Libby wouldn't have been indicted for statements made. Hue, that is just absurd. That's like saying she was a slut - otherwise she wouldn't have been raped. It's the same logic. Sluttiness is not a necessary component of the crime of rape. Nor is a crime a necessessary component of an investigation. Indeed, many, many investigations are for the express purpose of finding out whether a crime was, indeed, committed. Second, it is not at all necessary for Plame's outing to have been a crime in order to charge Libby with perjury/obstruction of justice/what-have-you, any more than it was necessary for oral sodomy to be a crime to charge Clinton with perjury/obstruction of justice. If Libby made false statements to a grand jury, or to federal investigators, that is a crime in and of itself, regardless of the worth of the underlying investigation. Your legal reasoning is just wrong. Further, since you are asserting that it was a crime to reveal Plame's identity, then cite the law. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 5:21 PM | Permalink Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink Jay: Mainstream political journalism is a system that falls apart when deviant or radical behavior overtakes centers of power. It isn't capable of throwing out the playbook when confronted with a new threat, because it doesn't have any other playbook and it can't stop the presses long enough to work one out. This last comment seems to come very close to surrendering hope for mainstream political journalism ever coming to terms with what they face. Do you? Are you suggesting the standard bearers simply aren't up to the task and we'll have to start over with alternative media outlets of some sort? Are you rather holding out hope for the provincial and non-mainstream outlets that show signs of life? Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 5:35 PM | Permalink Bush isn't playing by the rules? Neither are our enemies. Neither is the MSM - if you consider democratically enacted laws to be rules to play by. Which rules does the statement apply to, btw? Hue chimes in There was a crime in revealing her identity, otherwise the Justice Department would not have investigated. Fitzgerald isn't making an inquiry into whether a crime was committed. No crime, no special prosecutor. Otherwise Libby wouldn't have been indicted for statements made. Amazing - truly amazing. Especially the last sentence, since Libby wasn't indicted for revealing her identity.
Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink Don't take my word for it, read the special counsel's release on the indictment. Senior White House I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when and subsequently disclosed to reporters to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson at the Central Intelligence Agency. ... The crime was disclosing classified information. If you want the exact statute, call the DoJ, since you are citizen journalist. Slut and rape. Again and again you use troll tactics and language, which cheapen the debate here. Now in our current context and this thread, Fitzgerald did determine that many reporters received this classified information and chose to not publish, and the one did publish, Robert Novak. None were not indicted for receiving this information or publishing it. Could this be freedom of the press? Read it again John Moore, I didn't say Libby was indicted for revealing her identity. Mr. don't take me literally. Mark, Thanks for linking to the Counterterrorism blog piece. Wow. So there WERE brothers in Iraq before the war, indeed. So much for Murtha's delusion that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. But somehow Cheney was wrong for not bombing the terrorists that were in Iraq before the war, so he would still have an excuse to go to war because the people who now think there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war (other than, you know, Yasin, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas to name just three, and Zarqawi to name yet another one who wasn't a terrorist before the war even though he was already wanted by Jordan, I guess for jaywalking) would be willing to go along with a pretext to kill the terrorists which they believe did not exist. Can you believe these pea-brains? Geez. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 5:55 PM | Permalink I dropped the word future. Disclosure of classified information about an individual's employment by the CIA has the potential to damage national security in ways that range from preventing that individual's future use in a covert capacity, to compromise intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states. Sorry Jay, I'll stop re-arguing the Plame case. The last part of this discussion is about how the MSM is having a problem changing to the conditions the second Bush Administration has thrown at them. When I mean correction, I do not mean it in a legal sense, but as a way of changing a persective. I don't really think most of America has really caught on to what the administration has done. Imagine a series of articles by the NYT on how it, and everyone else, was misled by the WMD's issue on Iraq. In the readers mind, this would be a correction, but it should would sell papers. Imagine a series of articles on the industry and financing of abortions. In the readers mind, this might be a correction, but it would sell papers. Most of this discussion has been taking place from the perspective of the journalist, government official or interested special issue activist. These are all people with an axe to grind. Until this group thinks out of the box they are in, the same things will occur. Jason, the camp of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda terrorist who had taken up residence in Iraq's northern no-fly zone, outside Saddam Hussein's control. It's really not that confusing when you take geography into account. Geography is not classified. You are complaining about press competence again. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 10, 2006 6:25 PM | Permalink It isn't capable of throwing out the playbook when confronted with a new threat, because it doesn't have any other playbook and it can't stop the presses long enough to work one out. Mark Anderson: "This last comment seems to come very close to surrendering hope for mainstream political journalism ever coming to terms with what they face. Do you?" I am just about there, the point of surrendering hope, as regards the press ever coming to terms with the Bush White House's press and political "project." That is with rollback and the enlargement of executive power while simultaneously making it less legible. I think that is basically not going to happen while Bush is in office. But we will continue to see investigative work like Risen's, which is itself a big deal. Surrendering hope does not mean surrendering analysis, I would add. In a way the system failure makes sense. What are the chances that the next president will "lapse" back into the Gergen consensus? Pretty good. You could say it's happening now with Snow and Bolton. So from the bureau chief's point of view: You keep the "old" operating system, you get mauled for 5-6 years, and then a more conventional politician is elected, Democrat or Republican, and your system isn't old any more, if fits perfectly, so what have you really lost? I would argue a lot: you lost your compact with readers because you didn't level with them about getting mauled. Plus: Bush is gone, Powerline remains. The assault on the press castle isn't going to stop. However, the picture may well change after Bush. In 2009-20012 lots could come out and be told--or learned in tranquility--by the press that would radically change the way journalists view 2001-06 and their own role in it. The Bush Presidency will itself undergo radical overhaul when the books by insiders appear. If the next Administration continues with some form of rollback, or be-the-press strategy, that will affect views in journalism about what Bush was doing back when. Also: Adam Nagourney and Dana Milbank don't think there is a thing wrong with their operting system and would treat most of what I am saying as bunk. Keep that in mind. Even when the press is doing a kick ass responsible job and has the troops, it isn't getting anywhere near the real story of executive action. It's not a first draft so much as a very spotty first coat of truth. It doesn't cover. Journalists at their best get a sketchy, patchy and drastically incomplete, half blind version of things, except in exceptional cases of immersion reporting. Often they have to admit in retrospect, "we didn't know what the hell what going on behind the scenes." The first coat doesn't cover it. Only later coats bring out the grain. And so wave after wave of political story tellers and historians have to come after and... it's tempting to say "fill in the blanks" but this subtly tilts the picture to journalism's benefit. What happens as the Bush years recede from immediacy might in some cases complete a basically correct picture layed down by the beat reporters and correspondents day to day. But it might not. Because sometimes the second and third wave narrators completely overturn the picture, and wreck the stories of the early chroniclers, or expose their illusions. What if, to return to the bureau chief looking over the Bush presidency, in your normal portrait of a presidency you got 55 percent of it filled in in some fashion, and here you got 10? Should you notify your readers? Hue,
No. The analogy was precisely en pointe. You know it, which is why you can't defend your position. My analogy doesn't cheapen debate. Sloppy reasoning does. Now, again, you can indict a ham sandwich. If outing Plame was a crime, then show me the statute. Now, you're going to have to thread a pretty interesting needle, because the law that would arguably apply to the NSA stories and, though slightly more distantly, to the SWIFT stories specifically prohibits the publication of information concerning communications intelligence activities, cryptography, etc, and does NOT apply to the outing of CIA agents. There is a separate law on the books which criminalizes the outing of CIA agents. But that law specifically dos NOT apply to agents who have not operated in covert status for more than five years. Further, Libby was specifically NOT indicted for divulging her identity. And you know it. And why wasn't he indicted for divulging her identity? Because divulging her identity was not a violation of any law. You need to base your arguments on the facts and law as they are. Not as you wish they were. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 6:50 PM | Permalink Who sees a retreat from empiricism angle in this story? I have but three words for you: No Fly Zone. I'm going to make this very simple - a multiple choice test. Choose the answer that is correct: 1. The no-fly zone was in what country? Now, here's another multiple choice question for you: 2. Murtha's statement that "there were no terrorists in Iraq" contains a specific reference to what country? A. Canadia Show your work ;-) Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 7:00 PM | Permalink I'm not interested in re-fighting the Plame case or re-enterting the war in Iraq in this thread. I will start killing posts that are about that. Jay The Plame Case is relevant to the discussion of the publishing of classified information. Censoring that subject removes what I consider an important contrast point in the discussion. Without it, we are left only with the actions which please the left (roughly speaking) and anger the conservatives, but without a demonstrative example of the opposite. We encounter enough politicized framing and censorship from the MSM already. This is disheartening. I have no similar objection on the past history of the Iraq war, unless the subject is relevant. Posted by: John Moore at July 10, 2006 7:38 PM | Permalink Jay Rosen: Journalists at their best get a sketchy, patchy and drastically incomplete, half blind version of things, except in exceptional cases of immersion reporting. And yet, when dealing with classified information, if in doubt ... publish! Oh, and not acting as a custodian of fact or practicing a discipline of verification makes publishing in doubt all the more likely. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 7:57 PM | Permalink I say this in an exchange with John Moore: JM: We have more liberty today, in a time of global war, than we had a mere 40 years ago. Unfortunately, some in the MSM are showing that they cannot use it wisely. And Neurocon paraphrases me as this: Village Idiot lives in a fantasy world in which American citizens are being disappeared off the streets. .... and this is the same person that claimed with no substantiation, a few posts ago, that he published several papers in scholarly journals. I guess he just made shit up in the literature review sections; must have come real easy to his practiced hand. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 8:05 PM | Permalink "If in doubt, publish" is not a very satisfactory formulation. "I'm certain publishing US secrets helps the terrorists; in recruitment, in morale, in belief that the US public will give up." No, Tom, what has helped the terrorists immeasurably is the misbegotten and tragically misdirected invasion of Iraq, and the resulting quagmire -- certainly a recruiting and morale tool that these wingbats could have never in 1,000 years imagined would fall into their laps unbidden. Osama bin Laden must fall on his knees in prayer every night, asking for ask for more Rumsfeld's. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 10, 2006 8:27 PM | Permalink When there are people in politics who wish to change that opinion into… An independent and truthtelling press is vital but the press we have is not independent, it’s aligned with a liberal elite, and has become a threat to national security… they cannot be defeated by invoking the founders or reciting the Constitution. There have to be other ways of arguing the case and fighting back. Which would be immensely simplified if the major legacy press wasn't making such a good case for the "aligned with a liberal elite" position. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 10, 2006 9:04 PM | Permalink I’ve read it four times and still can’t make sense of it, especially this sentence: “We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.” Huh? Jay, I'm merely a computer geek and logician, and not a professor of journalism at a big name university, but I didn't have any trouble following that op ed. Did you read it, or just sneer at it? Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 10, 2006 9:08 PM | Permalink IMHO, the Times overplayed the SWIFT story.... it comes as no surprise to anyone that banking records were being examined, and the real story was the lack of any Congressional oversight of the program. If that's the "real story", why is it that the Times' own coverage said Congress was being briefed? Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 10, 2006 9:10 PM | Permalink So obviously, your premise that the terrorists already knew we were able to monitor transactions between foreign banks is falsified, not just retroactively by the capture of the Butcher of Bali and at least five others thanks, in part, to the SWIFT monitoring program, but also looking forward as well. After all, if your ridiculous postulate were to be accepted, one would expect precisely zero previous arrests, and precisely zero compromized investigations going forward. Isn't that your theory? that the Times story laid bare this intrepid terrorist fighting tool, and hence rendered it ineffective. By that logic, shouldn't you be willing to eat crow the instant we have the next criminal captured with the help of money transfer related leads. So, pray from now on that there are no detentions from this surveillance program, because otherwise, your claims of treason start to sound bogus even within your contorted, reactionary construct. As for me, I believe the Times story does not matter, because the Times is not disclosing anything secret, and furthermore that the Times was not bound by any laws that it should not discuss such a program in its paper. Also, you fail to note that the "butcher of Bali's " actions were not prevented by the SWIFT sleuths. I am not even sure he was apprehended because of SWIFT surveillance either. Can you provide evidence on this? Even assuming that he was, there is no special utility for the program that we are talking about in such situations because I do not believe any country in the world would refuse to cooperate on a post-incident investigation attempting to trace the culpricts. You must also know by now that I attach the same level of credibility to this administration's claims of "compromized investigations" [sic] as I do to your facile and / or spurious citations of criminal law, or to your disingenuous paraphrases. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 9:20 PM | Permalink Jay Rosen: "If in doubt, publish" is not a very satisfactory formulation. No, it's not. It's arrogant and ignorant. It's unempirical and unimaginative. It's anti-historical and anti-intellectual. But other than that ... Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 9:21 PM | Permalink TERRORISM, THE MEDIA, AND THE GOVERNMENT: PERSPECTIVES, TRENDS, AND OPTIONS FOR POLICYMAKERS Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 9:57 PM | Permalink VI: Isn't that you're theory? That the Times story laid bare this intrepid terrorist fighting tool, and hence rendered it ineffective. By that logic, shouldn't you be willing to eat crow the instant we have the next criminal captured with the help of money transfer related leads. (blink blink) VI, your logic train is seriously uncoupled. Suppose someone is picked up next month on money-tracking evidence. I'll stipulate further that it is via SWIFT. I'll further stipulate that it is from an international SWIFT monitoring rather than a domestic one. That would in no way indicate that other investigations of other subjects were not compromised by the program. If we were tracking 10 strong suspects, eight vanish from the radar screen following publication, and the ninth for some reason doesn't get the memo and screws up and gets caught, you don't get to jump up and down and point to him and say "See? We got one! That means the program wasn't really compromised." I mean, really, VI. You got one. When you perhaps could have caught three or four had the program remained secret. As for me, I believe the Times story does not matter, because the Times is not disclosing anything secret That's funny. I read it in the Times itself that it was. Look at the original story. The program is described as "Secret" almost a dozen times!!!! The Times obviously thinks it had a scoop: They put it on the front page. Hell, they called it "Secret" right there in the headline! Were they lying? and furthermore that the Times was not bound by any laws that it should not discuss such a program in its paper. There are some arguing that the Communications secrets act, narrowly constructed, would not apply here. I'm not convinced, though. Why would the act not apply? We're certainly monitoring communications, after all. Is that what you're arguing? Or are you trying to pretend the law doesn't exist? Or that somehow the Times is exempt from the law? I mean, not even Rosen believes that, and has been careful to so state. Also, you fail to note that the "butcher of Bali's " actions were not prevented by the SWIFT sleuths. This is your argument? That because SWIFT caught him and his cohorts after the fact that it is not effective? That nothing short of 100% success is effective? A 50% success rate, for example, is ineffective? This is what passes for logic in your world? Gee, I wish we were opposing counsel somewhere. I could use the money. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 10, 2006 9:58 PM | Permalink See When in Doubt, Publish by Geoffrey Cowan of USC, Alex S. Jones of Harvard's Kennedy School, John Lavine of Northwestern, Nicholas Lemann of Columbia, and Orville Schell of Berkeley (July 9). It may not be very satisfactory, but it will do for now; I will take these gentlemen's lamest observations anyday over a herd of hyperventilating, islamophobes trying to smear, with breathless accusations of treason, the most enduring example there is of journalistic gumption (warts and all) in the world. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 10:00 PM | Permalink I could use the money. Ever wonder how you got there? Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 10:04 PM | Permalink This is your argument? That because SWIFT caught him and his cohorts after the fact that it is not effective? That nothing short of 100% success is effective? A 50% success rate, for example, is ineffective? Now, you are forgetting your own argument, Jason. Your premise was that because the Times published the article, other countries have stopped cooperating. I am suggesting that this is not true in cases where a crime has been already committed, because once a crime has been committed, I do not believe there is anyone that has said they will not cooperate in tracking down the culpricts. So, to reiterate, the SWIFT surveillance program provides no additional utility where a crime has already occurred because criminal investigation procedures (think interpol) already exist to tackle these situations. For this reason, you cannot use post incident investigation examples to prop up your accusations. If that does not sound logical to you, sorry. By the way, I am still waiting for citations that establish that Mr. Amrozi was indeed captured with the help of SWIFT. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 10:20 PM | Permalink Christopher Hitchens thinks the Dean's letter is very weak. He also makes a crucial observation about this story: ("The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that the Bush administration briefed the panel on a 'significant' intelligence program only after a government whistle-blower alerted him to its existence and he pressed President Bush for details." Here's Hitchens: If the House intelligence committee regards itself as being kept in the dark, what is the press to do but make the assumption that there is too little public information available rather than too much? VI -- What, pray tell, did you mean by "regularly get caught up in the government's sweeps?" I won't even touch your reference to "forced childbirth." I can assure you, idiot, that I do not make things up. Nor do I use profanity in posts. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 10, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink If we were tracking 10 strong suspects, eight vanish from the radar screen following publication, and the ninth for some reason doesn't get the memo and screws up and gets caught, you don't get to jump up and down and point to him and say "See? We got one! That means the program wasn't really compromised." Ah, heads you win and tails, the Times loses; very nice, indeed. You have made a serious accusation against the Times, but you are now saying that you cannot really prove harm? All these TREASON/SEDITION accusations are based on merely your conjecture that some terrorists are stupid/masochistic? So, hypothetically, if in the future, there are ten SWIFT related entrapments of stupid/masochistic terrorists, you will say that there might have been 12 without the article, and if there are 20, you will assert that there would have been 25 without the Times' treasonous article? Prosecutorial talent par excellence, I must admit. Your tactics give a new meaning to win/win. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 10:38 PM | Permalink Cool it with the escalating posts or I will take care of it. NC, Village, Jason, Moore. Cool it down. Disengage. Inject some humor. Add a link. Argue about what Christopher Hitchens said. In a word, it would take balls too big for the press to react in proportion to what Bush and company are actually doing. Mainstream political journalism is a system that falls apart when deviant or radical behavior overtakes centers of power. It isn't capable of throwing out the playbook when confronted with a new threat, because it doesn't have any other playbook and it can't stop the presses long enough to work one out. Once this pattern sets in, denial comes with it .... That's why we have an op-ed from Keller and Baquet that talks about "tension" between government and press but mysteriously fails to mention the Bush strategy of de-certifying, attacking and polluting the press with misinformation. And that was supposed to be their effort to fight back! Journalists are very alarmed by the current campaign against the Times .... But even deeper than their sense of alarm is the desire to believe that an old operating system ... can handle the new data. The countervailing thought--that it can't--just fries their circuits. --Jay Yup, you got it. Which is why both the op-ed from Keller and Baquet and the written-by-committee letter from the five deans each leave one oddy hungry one hour after consuming. They are launching old defenses to an entirely new offense the likes of which they have never seen. It's a new ballgame, and that confuses the all-stars of yesterday's game. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 10, 2006 10:46 PM | Permalink Oh, for heaven's sake, Jason, would you stop playing middle-school debate squad. The 'what-if' speculations and the gotcha! word games (Iraq! He said Iraq, not Southern Iraq!) are getting silly. We (which includes you) don't know with any precision either SWIFT's success rate or the negative impact of the Times' report. So you really can't use either to denigrate someone's else's speculation or thought processes. We're not keeping score and you're hardly making points. Why not just have a conversation rather than try to count coups. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 10, 2006 10:54 PM | Permalink Jay & Steve, Consider for a second that the "Bush is something new, never before seen in American history" frame is as immobilizing for the press as the status quo "nothing is different, so nothing needs to change." Imagine if the big 4 newspapers, big 4 broadcast/cable networks and Cox radio announced that they wanted to establish a National News Council or Office of Censorship chaired by Boccardi, or co-chaired by Boccardi and Kean/Thornburgh/Hamilton, or whoever .... You know, the best defense ... Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 11:01 PM | Permalink They are launching old defenses to an entirely new offense the likes of which they have never seen. It's a new ballgame, and that confuses the all-stars of yesterday's game. That's been the managerial strategem for years. To combat TV, print ran larger photos and cut narrative context. That worked real well. Now, confronted with a White House that doesn't need them and an audience that can provide news and content faster than they can, they hold focus groups. You'd laugh if it didn't hurt so much. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 10, 2006 11:02 PM | Permalink VI -- What, pray tell, did you mean by "regularly get caught up in the government's sweeps?" I won't even touch your reference to "forced childbirth." I can assure you, idiot, that I do not make things up. Nor do I use profanity in posts.I was going to post links, but on second thoughts, naah, I will let it be .... My post and your paraphrase of it appear side-by-side for readers to judge, and I am willing to live by that. Posted by: village idiot at July 10, 2006 11:18 PM | Permalink If you're weighing explanations for the Bush Administration's media strategy, I hope you'll consider one alternative before concluding it's a retreat from empiricism: Many in our dominant media may occasionally present facts, and withhold others, in a manner which distorts rather than illuminates; it's likely that distortion is less a product of political antipathy (though I'm open to the possibility) than ideological group-think. If that's true (and many of the President's team members believe it, so beware), then a strategy to neutralize that distortion is not only rational but perhaps even imperative from the President's perspective. P.S. John Har-Harwood unwittingly nails it: "Secondly, there is a very large gap between the ideological outlook and philosophy of The New York Times editorial page and The Wall Street Journal editorial page. There is not a large ideological gap between the news staffs of those two places, and why would there be?" To illustrate what John nails, write down on a sheet of paper the following - - Left column: NYT Ed page, NYT news staff, WSJ news staff. Right column: WSJ Ed page. See? Posted by: Trained Auditor at July 10, 2006 11:21 PM | Permalink VI -- We have found a modus vivendi, then. I am more than happy to let your full comments stand or fall on their merits. And I think I was actually being charitable in responding to just one of your claims. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 10, 2006 11:27 PM | Permalink Is there anything to be gained by making a nasty moment in White House-media relations even nastier?Custodian of fact... UPDATE (10:15 a.m.): William Powers claims: Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 10, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink Something really and truly baffles me. When speaking of classified secrets, they're always characterized as Bush's secrets, or the government's secrets. They're not. They're my secrets. And yours. And in this interconnected world we live in now, they're America's secrets. I'm not saying they should never be revealed, I am saying that when a journalist ponders revealing a secret she should realize that it is her secret she's revealing as well. I think the public has lost a lot of trust in the institution of journalism by this latest revelation of their secrets. Navel gazing about the role of journalism in a democracy is not enough to justify this instance. Keller gave away my secret. And he cannot justify his decision to do so. (And, perhaps, Lovelady can explain that if the program was not secret, then what public interest was served by revealing it? You cannot have it both ways.) What’s there to argue about, Jay? As usual, Christopher Hitchens’ analysis reflects his sharp intellect and awesome writing skills. He makes perfect sense. (I consider myself a pretty religious person and also enjoyed his piece on the WH response to the Muslim cartoon hoopla. He does have a way with words.) And thanks, Tim Schmoyer, for those excellent links, especially that Rhetorica piece. It sure would be nice if "rhetorical" pieces like that actually got translated into action! Wow. Then look out. Posted by: Kristen at July 11, 2006 12:31 AM | Permalink Tim, you Custodian of Fact link (that you link to through Cline) does not lead to what Powers said about rewarding "people who get the story not quite right." I believe it's in an Atlantic online piece, not availabe without a subscription. Hard for us to judge what Power meant by that selection if we can't see the entire piece. Too bad Rhetorica closed the comments. Comments can take on a life if their own, but do add to the conservation. I wonder how sharp you would have thought about Hitchens' intellect and analysis when he was a Trotkyist and socialist. But people are allowed to discover new religion like David Brock. Has Brock's intellect and analysis weakened? Jay - The biggest problem with the Deans' letter is hardly their use of "oldthink" or their lack of sufficient vigor in defense of disclosure. The problem is their utter failure to support their thesis: The journalist's dilemma, then, lies in choosing between the risk that would result from disclosure and the parallel risk of keeping the public in the dark. In more than 1000 words, the deans never describe -- or even mention -- what "parallel risk" would obtain if the SWIFT story were not published. They manage to squeeze in Plame, NSA telephone monitoring, the Pentagon Papers, and even Teapot Dome. But in what way was SWIFT a "close call?" Never explained. There is also a major factual distortion in the piece. The deans claim: "Indeed, in a number of cases since 9/11, many news organizations, including the Times, have forgone publication of information at the request of the Bush administration." However, Bill Keller himself told Charlie Rose that there were only two times the White House asked him for restraint on a specific piece: NSA and SWIFT. In both cases, Keller ultimately chose to publish: CR: How many times in the last year have you had to make a decision in which the government asked you not to publish?
Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 11, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink Jay, As you say, many of the larger questions you raise, the relation of first-try deadline reporting to what we know later, etc., are a function of timeframes and information that only comes out once people leave office and aren't quite as exposed to retribution at their place of employment. It strikes me that another layer to consider adding to a new blog-friendly model of political journalism would be to set up a newspaper-affiliated blog whose beat would be to expressly raise these sorts of issues, to ask, "Given what we've reported before, how might a longer term perspective require us to reframe a previous story based on what has emerged since?" There are a lot of "stonewall-till-election day" or "confuse and distract the rubes" tactics that might be at least moderately reined by an approach along these lines. Froomkin tries to do this to some degree within bounds, but wouldn't it be interesting to assign someone to consistently ask questions such as: What have the dominant press narratives of this war, this administration, empirically been, as judged by what appeared in our pages? What do subsequent events or subsequently acquired information suggest we need to change concerning these previous stories? Obviously we will get sharply differing answers to those questions from different reporters on this beat, but wouldn't it be fascinating to have an institutional place set aside to ask imperative questions like that? I'm certain news consumers of all stripes are fit to be tied over the infinitesimal attention span of the institutional press as currently constituted (sometimes they don't seem to be able to carry a thought through an entire paragraph, let alone an administration). What news consumer would not appreciate some effort to address the black hole where institutional memory ought to be in political journalism today? I'm certain this would be considered roundly offensive by many occupants of present day newsrooms. Surely once it is explained that the whole idea is to acquire something like hindsight, however, it shouldn't be that threatening to admit that staff journalists who write the first draft can't know everything in advance. By definition they can't have known what has only come to light since their deadline passed. Does something along these lines strike you as a good idea? Can you imagine anything like this flying at a major standard-bearer newspaper? No doubt it would require actually taking a stand and making judgements about truth, presentation, and performance. I'm also beginning to wonder if that's just too much to ask from the media as currently constituted. Perhaps we will ultimately have to start over from alternative platforms organized in different ways, different ways that include the reporting function. As per your previous post, I suppose this would be something like trying to apply the Talking Points Memo model to national and international topics Josh Marshall and his staff don't get to. The idea would be maintain focus rather than simply sprint to deadline and call it journalism. I imagine this was once supposed to have been the job of the weekly news magazine. Sadly, most of them seem to have long since become newspaper reporting watered-down so it's fit for an audience with an attention span somewhere between that of the newspaper reader and the consumer of broadcast TV news. In other words, this niche could also be filled by a well-organized online news magazine. I'd love to hear about anything developing along these lines, because I'd like to read it. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 11, 2006 12:55 AM | Permalink Jay - you asked: Who sees a retreat from empiricism angle in this story? Neuro-con: I do -- I do!! [feverishly raising my hand in the back of the class] The retreat from empiricism is represented by the fundamental dishonesty and factual distortion of John Dean's account, upon which your linked posting is based. As but one example, he cites two famous WWII-era cases, Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita, as supporting the extension of habeas corpus to enemy combatants and thus being incompatible with Bush Administration policy at Guantanamo. In fact, these cases only granted habeas corpse -- the court supported the quick execution of both plaintiffs by ad-hoc military tribunal. But you would never guess that from reading Dean -- or FDL. More details on Hamdan, including a discussion of the detainee treatment act, can be found at NRO here and all over here. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 11, 2006 1:17 AM | Permalink Well, Tom Maguire of Just One Minute, whom I respect a great deal though I agree with him only sometimes, isn't impressed with the Dean's statement either. See his A Teachable Moment. Tom thinks it would be fun to ask J-school students whether they agree with the Deans (and Alex Jones, who isn't a Dean) that Robert Novak made the wrong decision to reveal Valerie Plame's name. Hue, I think Jay has a subscription to the Atlantic, as I do, but you'd probably appreciate his summary more than mine. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 11, 2006 1:35 AM | Permalink Jay: I'm not interested in re-fighting the Plame case ... I will start killing posts that are about that. Jay: Argue about what Christopher Hitchens said. Hitchens: A serious controversy persists as to whether Joseph Wilson himself endangered national security by repeatedly misstating the facts about the Iraq-Niger connection. In order for that controversy to be fully ventilated, the extent of his connection to the CIA must be fully known. Whether Novak meant to blow Plame's cover or not (and as it happens it seems that he did not), he would have been well within his journalistic rights to do so. Posted by: John Moore at July 11, 2006 1:53 AM | Permalink I should subscribe, since I believe free content is a bad business model. Or a trial subscription. But I have more media subscriptions that I can read or listen. I'm just giving you a hard time for making me follow that link and checking at Rhetorica and not finding that story. ;-0 John, I think you can argue about Plame as it relates to the impact of publishing or not of classified information. But not litigate the facts (outside press issues) or fight the culture wars (whether or not she was convert). That's going to hard for most people to separate the politics. Hitchens, among others, discuss the leak of a letter by the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee complaining to Bush of lack of oversight information on so far unpublicized intelligence information. This is an example of the media responsibly using a non-classified leak. My question is: if the actual programs are leaked, should they, and will they be printed? How will that be decided? Should the press defer to congressional oversight - in other words, decide that congressional oversight adequately protects the citizens - or will it decide that the world has to know the secrets so that our citizens will be adequately informed. ??? From the press' point of view, and to some extend from those of the founders, we have four branches of government. If the executive and legislative branches (after the briefings that Hoekstra demands) approve of the programs, do the rest of us need to know also? Posted by: John Moore at July 11, 2006 2:06 AM | Permalink Given that one of the major obstructions to mainstream political journalism honest enough to regain a shred of legitimacy with the American people is the constant threat of character assassination for any politician or journalist audacious enough to challenge the Cheney administration or defend democracy or public policy debate from enforced GOP exile, Taylor Marsh's chronicle of the relentless and desperate attempts to smear John Murtha since he went to the unspeakable extreme of suggesting that Cheney administration policy in Iraq is not going so well and perhaps it was time to publicly debate US policy makes for fascinating reading. The term "vast right wing conspiracy" doesn't really seem strong enough to convey the astonishing professional expertise, manpower, institutional resources, and organizational energy that go into the now familiar near criminalization of non-rightwingers stubborn enough to oppose the administration or stand up for the very idea of democracy and political debate. The essential claim seems to be that if you aren't a card-carrying member of one of the official rightwing personality cults you are a treasonous, corrupt, lying, ofay pervert. Is it going to take the foundation of a group proudly calling itself Treasonous, Corrupt, Lying, Ofay Perverts for Democracy vs. GOP Authoritarianism to call BS on this tired rightwing attempt to make support for democratic debate a sign of political treason and personal perversion? What should responsible journalism do in response to these virtual lynchings? How do you practice journalism if disagreeing with the right means they're coming for you next? How do you get to the point of caring about claims of security classification vs. the public's right to know if disagreeing with the Cheney administration means your children might be in danger? It almost makes me wonder if journalism under cover of a pseudonym might be a necessary part of the mix for a while. By posting the personal information of NYT employees, the right-wing blogosphere is engaging in the exact same conduct as “The Nuremberg Files” (which resulted in a $5 million judgement against the ACLA). This isn’t political speech we’re talking about here. The right-wing bloggers are targeting their perceived enemies through implied threats of violence. The First Amendment gives us tremendous leeway when it comes to expressing unpopular and reprehensible ideas, but it doesn’t give you the right to incite terror. Isn't that cute? Justice O'Connor Says House GOP Leader Endangers the Lives of Judges Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 11, 2006 5:54 AM | Permalink No mention of the role of leakers? Do they not have an axe to grind? Does this not shape the news? Posted by: Lonetown at July 11, 2006 5:56 AM | Permalink I mispoke in my previous post. Many of the dozens of former administration officials scapegoated by the Cheney administration were of course right-wing Republicans who made the mistake of publicly disagreeing with administration policy. It isn't even a "right-left" issue, it's a "get with the Cheney program or surrender your good name" issue. Casualties of the Bush Administration Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 11, 2006 6:02 AM | Permalink I am not in a position to speak for Jason, but I think I get his drift. That is, were the program obviously secret--which the NYT originally claimed--and obviously effective--which the NYT said--and depended for its continued effectiveness on remaining secret, the NYT would publish anyway, despite strong protestations from the admin. The arguments over whether it really as secret--which depend on which NYT excuse you read last--or effective--ditto, are eyewash. The NYT will publish secrets which will hurt the US. My hypothetical above specified that the prez would be a dem for a reason. Dancing around the issue is a waste of pixels. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 11, 2006 8:01 AM | Permalink If I could go to an online NYT or WaPo and see an entertaining clearinghouse of the critiques and sidebars to the previous day’s or week’s stories, believe me I’d consume that every day in a flash. Kristen: Let me recommend to you The Hotline's Blogometer, The National Journal's daily briefing on politics. It's not exactly what you're talking about, but it has elements of it -- and hell, you'll just like it. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 11, 2006 8:41 AM | Permalink Mark wrote: In other words, this niche could also be filled by a well-organized online news magazine. I'd love to hear about anything developing along these lines, because I'd like to read it. Hell, I'd like to work for it. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 11, 2006 8:57 AM | Permalink It is generally assumed that of any group you could name, some of its members would do anything nefarious for partisan purposes, despite actual or potential harm to the nation. The planted axiom of this discussion is that journalists are exempt from this presumption. Speaking of empiricism; is there any empirical evidence for the planted axiom? You know. Data. Facts. History. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Permalink Excuse, I get a kick out of this. My post, The People Formerly Known as the Audience, in French! (Le peuple jadis connu sous le nom d’audience.) If anyone reads French well and can tell me the quality of the translation, that would be most groovy. VI: These remarks were directed toward me. So, pray from now on that there are no detentions from this surveillance program, because otherwise, your claims of treason start to sound bogus even within your contorted, reactionary construct and, All these TREASON/SEDITION accusations are based on merely your conjecture that some terrorists are stupid/masochistic? Are you sure you're arguing with me? Please point out where I accused the Times, or any other news outlet, of the crime of treason. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 11, 2006 11:55 AM | Permalink You guys wanna have some good, clean fun at my expense? Here's something I wrote in May of 2004, but it brings up precisely the same issues we're talking about here. Reading it back now, more than two years on, I still pretty much think the same way. Which, I suspect, is not all that different from the way Jay Rosen thinks about it, on this issue. What's your take on my arguments then v. now? Have I been consistent? (And am I accusing any journalist of treason, then or now?) Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 11, 2006 12:00 PM | Permalink Hue: One thing rarely brought up in the attack on the Times is when someone (the WH?) leaked to the Times about the Al Qaeda computer guy in the fall of 04. That leak was far more damaging. And where was the cry of treason then? After Khan’s Name was Revealed. I’m going to close these speculations by quoting a news account, a report by CNN, and let you think about it. Answer for yourself (or tell me in comments.) Is the press a participant in the war on terror, or does observer-hood still tell the right story for journalists after 09/11?Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan Most analysts agreed that, regardless of who had leaked Khan's identity, the leak had been premature and had compromised the success of the intelligence operation. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 11, 2006 12:42 PM | Permalink Who's ready for a little semi-open-source thought experiment? It started bothering me that we weren't answering my Big Practical Question, so here's my proposal. Give me your reactions here and at 4:00 I will make a decision. I make a new post, a part two to this one, called How Do You Cover a Classified War? PressThink-ers Give it a Go I write an intro that frames the question, and lays out a few of my own "how to" ideas, sufficiently suggestive to generate some initial interest. The post is published and the comment section opens as usual. Participants agree to discuss not "the issue," but a more narowly practical question: what more intelligent ways are there for an independent press to cover a classified war? What new ideas are out there? How can it be done better? Got any guidelines that reporters could actually use? The "how to" is meant to be taken literally. I monitor the discussion and "promote" the best and most original ideas to the front page of PressThink. They are headlined and bullet-pointed there, with links to the comment post's url. These add up as the conversation rolls on. After Matter turns into links suggested for After Matter by participants in the comment thread. I promote those to the front page too. So you can participate by 1.) lurking in the comments and watching the post get created by a committee of the whole; or 2.) writing a post that answers the practical question How Do You Cover a Classified War?; or 3.) submitting a link for After that makes for a great post. There's a 4.) Participants who are bloggers agree to promote the discussion at their own blogs. If we have enough participation, and an intelligent filter, we should be able to make a pretty good post that will get response because it has original suggestions and cool links and wide-ranging intelligence in it. Chances of getting journalists to check in would be high, if we have the goods. Realize that this is a very simple mechanism: there's a post, it produces a comment thread, which produces diverse suggestions that are filtered by an editor into a highlight list that accumulates on the front page of the post. That's it. As an "arc" cut from the blogosphere and press-o-sphere, PressThink participants are reasonably diverse, so they drive diverse groups of curiousity and suggestion-bearing users to the post, which shows up in the (highly filtered) product. Where it really starts to get interesting is a later step, down the road: two volunteers from among PressThink users, one from each side of the Bush divide, become the intelligent--and demanding--filter and they promote the items. (Actually, the better number might be three, or two plus JR, but that's TBD.) Who's game and what suggestions and reactions do you have? I'd like to buy a vowel, Jay. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 11, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink Cool. That means your personal and Post Courier blogs are in for linking to the discussion thread, or what? Tim, How did the government react to the Khan story? Did it come out and said it asked the Times to hold it? Or did it use the leak during the election to say, look at how effective we are. Did the leakers know the British was still working Khan? Were there calls of treason or complaints that the WH asked the Times to hold? If the government said it wasn't damaging then would you expect editors to hold that story? If the Times held it, do you think another paper would have been given that leak? Go back and read the original story. The word classified appears no where, not even in quotes. When the government leaks to the press, the press should hold? Did the press (other than Novak) and including Judy Miller, exercise judgment, show restraint on the Plame leak? Okay, well seeing the lack of response, maybe next time for the Thought Experiment. It's a model I would like to test. Jay Rosen: How Do You Cover a Classified War? PressThink-ers Give it a Go It's a great idea and you should do it. You might take into consideration the effect on the response by offering the suggestion as the 232d comment at 1pm with a 4pm dealine. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 11, 2006 6:32 PM | Permalink Correction, 2pm with a 4pm deadline. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 11, 2006 6:33 PM | Permalink Sorry Jay, I would also like to participate in your experiment, but this afternoon I was mailing bills, giving a second opinion on glasses my wife is considering buying, and watching the baby for a couple of hours which at five months doesn't allow for much blogging time. I just saw your open source experiment suggestion for the first time at 6:40pm Eastern time (I'm in the central zone). Maybe next time it might go a little more smoothly with a longer time frame for responses and reflection--I'm thinking a minimum of 6-12 hours sounds about right. I might be tempted to make it even longer. Let me know when you want to try again. Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 11, 2006 6:48 PM | Permalink OT: Novak reveals role in leak case Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 11, 2006 7:13 PM | Permalink I agree with Jay Rosen that the publication of the Swift story is more arguable than the NSA wiretapping story. Two ideas on his Thought Experiment: Idea 1 - With the NYT Swift story, the press has published a classified story of arguable news interest, that arguably affects national security, that arguably should not have been published. The NYT is being criticized for the story by reasonable people that believe the story hurt national security, and praised for the story by reasonable people who believe in the public's right to know. I am disappointed by the tactics of many who criticize (the treason/execution crowd), but believe that the argument for secrecy is not meritless. To me, at least, it is fair to assume that the press will be even more cautious in what it discloses moving forward because of this outcry (not the ugly threats, but the argument against disclosure). Based on the debate we are seeing now, I believe that the way this war is being covered ALREADY IS the proper way that a 'classified war' should be covered. Thought 2 - Creation of a two-person 'Classified Information Disclosure' arbitration panel - which would consist of two judges, one from each party. If there is a dispute between the press and the administration about publication of a story, either side can request that the panel hear the arguments for and against publication. If both judges agree that the information should not be published (the administration making a valid case for not publishing), it will not be published. If both agree that it should be published (the press making a valid case for disclosure), it will be published. If there is a split, the decision falls back to the press outlet. In case of a split, one would assume they would publish, but would being doing so with the recognition that there has been serious discussion about the merits of the issue, and with the knowledge that they will likely be strongly criticized upon publication. Of course, I have no ideas for selection of this panel (the one from each party idea is intended to add some level of fairness, but is far from ideal), or getting the press or the administration to buy in. Just a thought experiment:-) Really enjoy this blog and the discussion. Posted by: boo at July 11, 2006 7:17 PM | Permalink Boo, In essence, we already have that. The government, if it strongly feels that publication would cause grievous harm to national security, may seek a prior injunction against publication. The Pentagon Papers case affirmed that, in principle, though did not think that particular case warranted an a priori restriction. That's fine by me. I would oppose a regular system of judicial review every time the Administration - of whatever party - had a beef. You'd have to rapidly expand it to include tens of thousands of separate media outlets -- and then the courts would have to wallow in shades of gray and wind up rewriting stories, or approving some parts and not others, etc. A bureaucratic nightmare. The moral hazard of criminal prosecution for violation of state secrecy laws is enough for me. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 11, 2006 7:33 PM | Permalink Just sounds like more navel gazing by the press to me. 'How to Cover a Classified War' acknowledging the necessity that both sides of the 'Bush divide' be involved already indicates context and perspective is totally lost. How about How to Cover a Classified War in 1942. When that's all settled THEN you can start to talk about how to cover it in 2006. Then note the differences, if any, in principles to follow in 1942 vs 2006. That would be a glorious teaching moment. Are you sure you're arguing with me? I am arguing with a group of right-wing posters that act as a tag team on Pressthink. However, I agree that it was not probably fair to you since you did not use the term 'Treason'. But if you really wish to distance yourself from the Treason/Sedition narrative, now is your chance. Please loudly denounce the Treason/Sedition crowd and make the argument to them that at best it should be a simple law-breaking change. In return for this you can expect a sincere apology from me for lumping you together with the reactionary crowd. By the way, are you now backing off from the claim that Mr. Amrozi was apprehended with the help of the SWIFT monitoring program, because I still have not seen any links/citations to support it? Posted by: village idiot at July 11, 2006 8:34 PM | Permalink Jay's experiment, in some form, sounds interesting. I just now read of it - 8 hours later (I have been rationing my participation here in order to get work done). Here's a few not well organized observations... The framing/introduction of the question should be short and precise. It shouldn't require reading a number of links to some-what related material. If the issue cannot be adequately described in a few paragraphs, it's probably too obscure or improperly framed. The "rules" (goals?) should be posted along with the introduction of the issue. Links to personal blogs, and comments here, should both be appropriate material for After Matter. For example, my blog is abandoned. It sits there and some day I may go back to it, but for now I'd rather post a comment here than revive the blog. Others may not have blogs. The "Bush divide," although fairly strongly correlated to attitudes, is a poor description of the approximately two sides from which to choose judges. I am much less a Bush supporter than an anti-leftist, and on this issue, pro-national security (vs pro-privacy). Let's find a better description. .......... On the idea of prior restraint, whether by voluntary submission to judges, or injunction - uh huh. The first idea would fail on practicality, and would itself become the focus of controversy, removing the responsibility from government, leakers and members of the MSM. The second is impractical. SCOTUS (in Pentagon Papers) makes it far more practical to use moral hazard in the form of ex-post facto prosecution. Posted by: John Moore at July 11, 2006 9:14 PM | Permalink Mark A - I'm not going to engage in a lot of debate with you here, because you have a blog where maybe you will take some of the more outrageous ones. But.... 1) How well did the public and congressional oversight committees know the status of the war against Japan, the day before Hiroshima? Think about it. 2) (Deja vue all over again) - Responding to your conspiratorial fantasies on the off topic subject of Murtha: I know some of the leaders organizing against Murtha. All of them are grass roots folks. Murtha ticked off more than some gigantic conspiratorial Republican smear machine.That's all I intend to say on this thread about Murtha, unless he betrays war secrets or something. BTW... you might also consider that both sides are capable of smears, and one of the main motivators for my entering the fray in 2004 was specific smears that Democrats made that hit me, people I knew, and one soldier I still mourn. See you on your blog (PS - my blog is no longer active, and the comment page, until I fix it, unfortunately will, without warning, lose your comments). Posted by: John Moore at July 11, 2006 9:21 PM | Permalink That means your personal and Post Courier blogs are in for linking to the discussion thread, or what? That's the nice thing about Lowcountry Blogs. As a member of the local blogosphere, if my personal/group blog or my media blog post items about a PressThink thought experiment, then Lowcountry Blogs is likely to cover those postings. It wouldn't be the first time Lowcountry Blogs noted a PressThink item, either. (The background: In mid-April The Post and Courier launched a blog dedicated to covering what was being written in local blogs. Its blogroll grew from an initial 31 links to well over 120 in less than two months. I recently pared back The Big Blogroll to get rid of inactive sites, so now we cover about 105 active, interesting local bloggers. When I'm unavailable to write the daily round-ups, other bloggers take turns doing it on their sites and I post the links to their reports. Covering the local blogosphere has been an enjoyable journalistic task -- it's a lot like being one of the "community correspondents" we used to run each week at The Mountaineer, only I'm covering what people are writing on blogs instead of what they're saying at church suppers. I don't think many people in the newsroom have noticed it yet, but this may take a while to sink in...) Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 11, 2006 9:37 PM | Permalink I guess I wasn't communicating well. The experiment itself has not started. No one should post suggestions yet. That would have to wait for a new post, which I have not written yet. At this point it's only an idea. I was just asking for feedback on who would want to participate, and whether PressThink regs thought it was a good idea. The period of time I allocated was only for reactions to the idea of doing such an experiment. Not long enough? Okay, not long enough. The actual real live thing would take several days, I would think. At a minimum 24 hours. I will keep it open this evening as a topic for discussion and maybe see where we are this evening. Bloggers who would be willing to post at their blogs about it (not a requirement for participation, but it would help) should speak up also. Jay, I agree with the comments from Mark Anderson and John Moore (now there's an unlikely pair) regarding the proposed grand experiment. You have to give us working stiffs more than a couple of hours' notice. That might work for the Kossacks, or for the Powerline faithful, or for various other collections of fanatics with no apparent lives to live or jobs to do off-line. But, much as we might like to, even those of us who are most drawn to Press Think don't monitor this site 24/7. (The exception being the occasional right-wing tag team dispatched here from other blogs which have taken offense at one Rosen proposition or another or one comment or another -- but that's another story for another day, isn't it ?) As an example, I didn't get to Press Think today until 9:40 pm.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2006 9:57 PM | Permalink 'How to Cover a Classified War' acknowledging the necessity that both sides of the 'Bush divide' be involved already indicates context and perspective is totally lost. Yes, totally. Navel gazing. Funny, that's exactly the word journalists would use. Low country blogs-- cool system.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2006 10:02 PM | Permalink Syl has it exactly right. How was a classified war covered in 1942? What mistakes were made on both sides? What was the partisan divide like? I have been looking into the last question a bit. First answer - not too much different from today. The history of the Pear Harbor Comissions is instructive. Second answer is: every one had relatives in that war. Secrets were guarded because your cousin or nephew was in harms way. Pearl Harbor was not very well reported until revealing code breaking was not so important (i.e. after Sept. '45). It still hurt us a little in post war negotiations. Here it is worse: every American is in harms way and the press is more cavalier about secrets. The enemy is probing for weakness (Bombay Calling?). The press has a big "it can't happen here and besides Bush is incompetent" sign posted on the front page. Just in case you wanted to know what news was fit to print. The American people are not buying it. They prefer citizens of America to citizens of the world. But if you really wish to distance yourself from the Treason/Sedition narrative, now is your chance. Please loudly denounce the Treason/Sedition crowd and make the argument to them that at best it should be a simple law-breaking change. By the way, are you now backing off from the claim that Mr. Amrozi was apprehended with the help of the SWIFT monitoring program, because I still have not seen any links/citations to support it? Amrozi? The only person mentioning Amrozi is you. Amrozi was not the big player in that scheme. He drove the bus. But the SWIFT program was, according to the New York Times and other, more reputable news sources, important in capturing a much bigger fish: Hambali.
Riduan Isamuddin Hambali was captured in Thailand in 2003 after the CIA gained access to records from a Belgian co-operative known as SWIFT, or Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. So, yes, the SWIFT program was indeed effective. And this silly notion that every terrorist in existence must be assumed to have known not only that the US was trying to monitor bank transmissions, but specifically that the program monitored transmissions that did not go through US financial institutions whatsoever, is therefore falsified. The program was effective. Even the New York Times conceded as much, back when they were asserting that the program was secret. If you can keep track of the (ahem) "operative statement" of the day over there. Not only did SWIFT monitoring help capture Hambali, but it also helped round up Mohamed Mansour Jabarah, an Al Qaeda cash-bagger from Canada also implicated in the Bali attacks. And his brother, killed in a gun battle in Saudi Arabia that year. Then there's Uzair Paracha, arrested in Manhattan in 2003. (Why do they always choose blue areas to hang out in?) That's just the outline. Patterico fills in some detail. I think Amrozi went down the same way Timothy McVeigh did - they just ran a tag. But the other six guys? You gonna argue that NONE of them were brought down, at least in part, on evidence gleaned from tracking financial data? Especially when at least one is specifically attributed to the SWIFT program and three more of them are specifically Al Qaeda money-launderers themselves? Or do you think we just pick them up when some cops tell them to turn the stereo down and - "oh, hey, look! Bombs!" Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 11, 2006 10:14 PM | Permalink VI, The harm will not be evident until an attack that could have been stopped gets through. Bombay Calling. It truly is a Beautiful Day. Except for the dead, the maimed, the shocked, and their friends, and relatives. No, no, no; not some generalized 2004 link, Jason; that is so timid and facile. You have seen and heard the extremist stuff put out against the Times by the Treason crowd, and all you can do is link to an out of context 2004 piece? Where is the outrage? nothing less than a full throated condemnation of the 'Execute Keller' mob will do to atone for your silence in the face of a lynchmob's rants. I am looking for a beratement that convincingly puts clear distance between your own views and those of the lunatics. Can you do that?:-) In advance of that, please accept my apologies for not appreciating your nuanced position on this issue and clubbing you together with the extremists. Posted by: village idiot at July 11, 2006 11:04 PM | Permalink 'How to cover a classified war' is a great idea, Jay. It will be a valuable exercise for journalists - and those who aren't.
Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 11, 2006 11:09 PM | Permalink Please enlighten us how the SWIFT would have stopped the tragedy at Mumbai, M. Simon. You apparently have information we don't. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 11, 2006 11:12 PM | Permalink The American people are not buying it. They prefer citizens of America to citizens of the world. Yep; Bombay calling is right. Time to open a new front in the GWOT; let us go fight them in Bombay so we do not have to fight them here. With a population of 1.1 billion, certainly we can afford a handful of Indians for everyone that might be spared here. Posted by: village idiot at July 11, 2006 11:15 PM | Permalink Dave, I have no idea. Why should I? I depend on the press to leak the secrets that will help the enemy and also add to my understanding. But that is a nice hypothetical. Suppose the SWIFT stuff might have stopped the Bombay attack. Would the press (esp. the NYTs) tell us it had bungled and gotten a bunch of folks killed because it couldn't keep a secret? Or suppose the SWIFT stuff would have stopped the hit we haven't taken yet? Will the press tell us it screwed up when it happens? As I said. It will be quite some time until the costs can be counted. Bombay was just an example of what could happen. It was not an example of something SWIFT might have definitely stopped. It is early days yet, so maybe SWIFT could have stopped it - we don't know. Maybe the Indians will tell us as time goes on. I do know that some agents said SWIFT did prevent an American subway attack. And that they could not trace it as far back as usual once the SWIFT program was outed. We shall see. All it will take is one successful attack that could have been prevented by SWIFT and a few hundred more newsies will be looking for new lines of employment. Perhaps revealing trade secrets will, in the end, be more lucrative. People of the press. Do you still wonder why you are losing the trust of your readers? VI, Why do we need to open a front in India? It appears the Islamic Imperialists have already done that without any help from us. In any case what would a successful attack of that magnitude in America do to the American people's relationship to the press? Will Bush be blamed and the press be held blameless? What if it comes out SWIFT had almost blown the attack before SWIFT was blown? There are some very real hazards for the press. Carrying a torch into the powder room is a job only for the most courageous or foolhardy. Too much. M. Simon, is now pinning the Bombay bombings not only on al Qaida, but also on the New York Times startling "revelation" that US intelligence tracks international financial transactions. (Duh-uh!) I can see the terrorists gathering now and comparing notes: "Damn that New York Times! Now everybody knows that we've read the websites of the SWIFT program itself and the four-year-old UN report about it. What shall we do ? I've got it -- let's blow up a bunch of Indian commuters !" Yeah, right.
Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 11, 2006 11:55 PM | Permalink Jason, Let me try this again; Once a crime is committed, every nation cooperates (even Switzerland) in investigating it. These are the normal criminal investigation channels. Using these channels to solve a crime is neither new nor is it a part of the SWIFT database sifting that we are discussing here. The Times story has no impact on this. If you are suggesting the Bali bombing investigators followed the money trail, there is nothing special there; that is how all criminal investigations are conducted. To prove your assertions on the SWIFT surveillance program, you have to show examples where the SWIFT transaction surveillance by CIA/NSA played a significant part over and beyond what was being achieved through the normal money trail investigation. For instance, if investigators tracked down Hambali through the money trail and somehow this was made possible only because of the CIA's secret SWIFT data mining operation while regular investigators were coming up blank, I might be pursuaded. In short, you are attempting to assert the efficacy of an HIV vaccine with data that came from anti-retroviral treatments. P.S.: To the best of my knowledge, Amrozi was the Butcher of Bali. You seem to associate the moniker with somebody else?? Posted by: village idiot at July 11, 2006 11:59 PM | Permalink SWIFT would also prevented future attacks of the Tamil Tigers, which perfected suicide bombings. If we used SWIFT earlier, we could have stopped suicide bombings by the Palestinians. Why didn't SWIFT stopped Chechen hostage crisis? In M.Simon's world every group that uses terrorist tactic with any Muslim connection, however unrelated to the US, is a part of the GWOT. Storm the NYTimes, who's with me? In any case what would a successful attack of that magnitude in America do to the American people's relationship to the press? Will Bush be blamed and the press be held blameless? I get it; 9/11 happened because the press exposed Echelon, not because of the failure of the administration's national security apparatus. Dumb Indians; they keep fighting Lashkar-e-Taiba in India instead of doing it in Pakistan .... Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 12:16 AM | Permalink The Consequences of Permissive Neglect Should journalists have legal accountability? Absolutely, in my view. Few would dispute that the first line of enforcement must be drawn to include government officials who unlawfully steal and disclose classified intelligence. Like citizens everywhere, government officers have different opinions on the propriety of holding journalists legally accountable for what they publish. Still, I believe that to be fully effective, a worthy law should also hold uncleared publicists—i.e., journalists, writers, publishing companies, media networks, and Web sites that traffic in classified information—accountable for intelligence disclosures. Specifically, media representatives should be held responsible for publicizing intelligence information—thus, making it available to terrorists and other US adversaries—that they know to be classified. Whether journalists understand it or not— and many probably do not—the public exposure of significant intelligence often damages intelligence effectiveness by compromising valuable US sources and methods. Journalists should also be held responsible under present criminal statutes for unlawful possession of classified documents when they have them. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 12:34 AM | Permalink Steve Lovelady M. Simon, is now pinning the Bombay bombings not only on al Qaida, but also on the New York Times startling "revelation" that US intelligence tracks international financial transactions. (Duh-uh!) No he did not. He simply proposed a what-if for people who have no imagination and can't possibly think of any way in which this revelation may have done harm. Characterizing M.Simons comments the way you did says more about you than about him. Wow - I'm not going to even touch the idiotic baiting going on above by the folks defending the outing of SWIFT. Grow up, folks. Tim, this will cause guffaws from the local crowd here, but there is some possibility that published leaks caused or contributed to: 1) The failure to capture OBL, or at least to stop 9-11 2) The failure of US intelligence to accurately characterize the WMD stockpiles and capabilities of Iraq, and possible removal thereof, prior to the 2003 war, by improving Saddam's Deception. It would be terribly ironic if a major cause of the Iraq WMD intelligence failure was a result of leaks of US technical intelligence means. Unfortunately, holding reporters legally responsible would require the Administration to recover cojones that may already have been made into huevos de toro. Tim, please email me if you get a chance. Posted by: John Moore at July 12, 2006 1:16 AM | Permalink I think that all here should read the link provided above by Tim. It gives, in detail, the CIA's perspective on intelligence links, and lots of assertions about the problems they cause. Most striking is the how large the problem is - how many leaks from which agencies (especially NSA and NRO, which are supersecret partly because of their technology). Of course, we can only trust the CIA for the accuracy of this, until the highly classified backing information is published in the Washington Times or the NYT (after it is leaked, of course). Posted by: John Moore at July 12, 2006 1:48 AM | Permalink Okay, well one cooperating blogger--thanks, Daniel-- is not enough for what I had envisoned. Not sure how to interpret that. Maybe I will write my own post. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Collaborative creative problem-solving is a rare hobby and an extremely niche publishing market. Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 12, 2006 10:10 AM | Permalink I was just waiting for the new post. I was going to see what good ideas the gaggle here came up with. I was afraid that we would end up with finger-pointing and no one listening, instead of fruitful input. Answer me this please, Describe me one, single situation in which you would characterize a press publication of national security secrets as illegal or undesirable to be protected. Then we can look at what separates the SWIFT story from that. Marc Posted by: Marc Siegel at July 12, 2006 12:29 PM | Permalink Tim asks, through a link, whether journalists should be held legally accountable for leaks of classified material. Specifically, media representatives should be held responsible for publicizing intelligence information—thus, making it available to terrorists and other US adversaries—that they know to be classified. I know of no journalists who believe they operate outside the law. We're subject to the same laws as any other citizen. Indeed, most news organizations have some proscription against breaking the law to get a story. No illegal tape recording. No posing as a law enforcement officer, etc. But the above link poses a extremely broad definition of breaking the law. It would cover everything from reporting detailed analysis of invasion plans to documents classified to disguise illegal political activity. Is that what we want? Was the public good ill-served by reports of the Pentagon papers? Watergate? The Me Lai killings? In context of the Times' reportage of SWIFT, let me ask - has anyone read the story? While it outlines the classified program, what is noticibly absent are specific details that would give our enemies useful knowledge. We're told that it exists but not how it works. As the story notes, President Bush has done as much in several speeches. Cited as sources are 20 current and former government officials familiar with the program. Indeed, Stuart Levey, a key official at Treasury is quoted frequently by name after on the broad workings of SWIFT after, we're told, the Times opted to run the story over White House objections. Where, precisely does this story that provides a history of SWIFT and a broad outline of its activities through the words of current officials help terrorist networks avoid detection? Perhaps yelling 'treason' and concocting unfounded speculation about terrorist acts unfettered by the Times report makes some feel good. But it's useless in discussing how the press covers classified wars. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 12, 2006 1:11 PM | Permalink Amrozi was the bagholder of Bali. He was a minor player in the organization. Basically, a grunt. It was Hambali who had the contacts with the 'suits' at Al Qaeda, Inc. I'm sure some called him "Butcher of Bali" when he was arrested. The alliteration is too powerful for a headline writer at the NY Post to resist. But Hambali was by far the bigger bust. Jason, Let me try this again; Once a crime is committed, every nation cooperates (even Switzerland) in investigating it. These are the normal criminal investigation channels. Using these channels to solve a crime is neither new nor is it a part of the SWIFT database sifting that we are discussing here. The Times story has no impact on this. Let me try this again. The routine criminal investigations within the U.S. were not secret. What was secret was the extent of cooperation among foreign bankers (whether this was a relationship opened directly with bankers or whether we went through their governments first is unclear to me so far. Either way, it's a secret.) We don't conduct threat assessments by looking in the rear-view mirror. (Well, I take that back. The idiots in the press corps do, except when it involves global warming). The smart terrorists will assume that we are trying to find out the information. They need not assume that we're actually getting it from Swiss bankers, you know, ABSENT A HEADLINE FROM THE NEW YORK TIME THAT SAYS WE ARE. Really, you're grasping at straws. Neither you, nor Keller, nor Baquet, were in any position to assess what was currently under investigation. They were all operating out of their area of expertise, with incomplete information, and making decisions on publishing with maybe 10% of the relevant information. Not only did we capture Hambali and these other five malchiks (I should add that none of them other than Hambali were in legal hot water absent the tracking of their finances, so your ex post facto argument collapses there. In these cases, the program was successful in breaking up at least two rings, one was domestic, and that domestic ring was currently plotting to import chemical weapons for use in terrorist attacks. That, VI, is NOT a "crime that already happened." All surveying starts from a known point. Same thing with artillery fires, and the same with criminal investigations. So, too, with intelligence gathering. From there you can uncover points not yet known. Templating helps focus limited resources. But it was financial records that busted this guy in Manhattan, who was not otherwise known to be a criminal. The Treasury Department specifically held that the Times ratting of the story compromised at least three ongoing investigations. So it's been demonstrated that the program had been effective in the past (Hambali, et. al.), and vie the Treasury Dept., that we were using it to track the moves of suspected (or, perhaps, known) terrorists. By tracking the moves of known terrorists, you can often uncover new terrorists, just like following a cockroach back under the sink. What the Times did was prevent the U.S. from following the known cockroach under the sink to find the rest of them. It is not neccessary to prove separately that there were cockroaches under the sink. You think these guys were wiring money to order pizzas? So the program was effective in the past. It was effective currently. There was reason to believe, based on at least three current operations, that it would lead to further busts in the future. What's next, you're claim that it didn't hurt us if you look at it from the f-ing 4th DIMENSION? It didn't hurt us on the planet Uranus and therefore wasn't a secret? You're drowning in rhetorical quicksand. The NY Times itself stipulated, a dozen times, including in the headline, that the program was "Secret." What part of "secret" isn't clear to you?
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 12, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink Marc, read Katharine Graham's entire column that Jay linked to: Tragically, however, we in the media have made mistakes. You may recall that in April 1983, some 60 people were killed in a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Beirut. At the time, there was coded radio traffic between Syria, where the operation was being run, and Iran, which was supporting it. Alas, one television network and a newspaper columnist reported that the U.S. government had intercepted the traffic. Shortly thereafter the traffic ceased. This undermined efforts to capture the terrorist leaders and eliminated a source of information about future attacks. Five months later, apparently the same terrorists struck again at the Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 servicemen were killed. Is the SWIFT story on par with the intercepts? The last time the government trumpeted a case involving SWIFT was 2002 or 2003, three years ago. Are there more cases we don't know about? If there are specific ongoing investigations that would be jeopardized, do you think the gov't made that argument with the editors? Tim, we can link to legal opinions all day arguing for and against holding journalists and the media legally accountable. In the Plame case, the court and DoJ determined that classified information was revealed, yet no prosecution of journalists. You have seen and heard the extremist stuff put out against the Times by the Treason crowd, and all you can do is link to an out of context 2004 piece? Where is the outrage? nothing less than a full throated condemnation of the 'Execute Keller' mob will do to atone for your silence in the face of a lynchmob's rants. I am looking for a beratement that convincingly puts clear distance between your own views and those of the lunatics. Can you do that?:-) Not worth my time or effort. I consider the position that the program that the Times described a dozen times as "secret" isn't "secret" as far more lunatic than that. At least you can argue the treason case, or argue, as a matter of opinion and public policy, that we ought to have treason-like penalties for actions such as those committed by the Times. Your position is flatly falsified a dozen times over, and is the equivalent of arguing 2 + 2 = 5. The ONLY tenable argument you've got, which I haven't seen you adopt, is to argue that the secrets act only applies to communications intelligence and cryptology. It's a long shot, because financial communications are very clearly arguable to be communications - but at least you are't trying to swim upstream against the facts and against the New York Times's own foolish, contradictory, and self-incriminating statements. But the position you've taken is the lunatic fringe position. You've camped out with the Flat Earth society on this one. Next time you take a position (i.e., The Secret SWIFT Program wasn't secret) and can't think of a single, specific data point from which to argue but have to rely ENTIRELY on theoretical constructs, think twice. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 12, 2006 1:52 PM | Permalink Jason, you do understand there's a difference between reporting that a secret program exists and revealing the intricacies of the secrets it contains, right? And, please, let's assume that Middle Eastern terrorists dealing with signicant movement of cash will be aware that U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies would seek the cooperation of European bankers. Posted by: David McLemore at July 12, 2006 4:02 PM | Permalink Dave McLemore: In context of the Times' reportage of SWIFT, let me ask - has anyone read the story? Yes. Where, precisely does this story that provides a history of SWIFT and a broad outline of its activities through the words of current officials help terrorist networks avoid detection? Which I think is similar to a previous question Dave asked about the leak of war plans: Tim, let's consider that the July 2002 Times story was notably weak on specifics -- where the hell else would the US invade Iraq from the the north, west and south, with thousands of soldiers? And that it was based on a military planning report. First the latter question. I don't consider the number of troops, types and designation of units, countries named or conspicuously missing, types of targets identified, status of timeline, title of the document and the level of detail (not) in the document as "weak on specifics." Secondly, anyone who knows precisely what information in a press story helps adversaries, or the actual damage it causes, couldn't tell you until it has been declassified. Last thought, for those recalling the pentagon papers (in the public's interest), what is the potential harm to the press by publication of classified information not in the public's interest? Or, is anyone arguing that there has been/is no such circumstance? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 4:26 PM | Permalink David, Posted by: John Moore at July 12, 2006 4:29 PM | Permalink Jason, you do understand there's a difference between reporting that a secret program exists and revealing the intricacies of the secrets it contains, right? Show it to me in the statute. And, please, let's assume that Middle Eastern terrorists dealing with signicant movement of cash will be aware that U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies would seek the cooperation of European bankers. No. Let's not make such an assumption. Because it would be wrong. The Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow (who is in a position to know, rather than guess) has already said, publicly and specifically, that we continued to see significant movement of terrorist cash through conventional channels, up to the date of the Two Times' publication. So your assumption is flatly false. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 12, 2006 4:40 PM | Permalink Syl at July 12, 2006 01:10 AM, Surpisingly enough Steve and I went to the same school. We do like to mix it up here from time to time :-). I'm really surprised at the reactions. I can get the initial mis-interpretation. Perhaps I did not explain myself well. However, I directly corrected the mis-interpretation. And still... I agree with your assessment of what I wrote. A failure of imagination. What if.... Posted by: Hue at July 12, 2006 01:46 PM says: In the Plame case, the court and DoJ determined that classified information was revealed, yet no prosecution of journalists. I must have missed the trial and the subsequent verdict. Do you have a link? LOL I was always under the impression that the facts hadn't been decided. Which is why what went on was called an investigation. If there are specific ongoing investigations that would be jeopardized, do you think the gov't made that argument with the editors? Here's Treasury Secretary John Snow: Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing “half-hearted” about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place. Neither you, nor the Times, nor any other journalist without a secret clearance, is in any position whatsoever to conclude otherwise. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 12, 2006 5:07 PM | Permalink First the latter question. I don't consider the number of troops, types and designation of units, countries named or conspicuously missing, types of targets identified, status of timeline, title of the document and the level of detail (not) in the document as "weak on specifics." Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 04:26 PM This from the Times report on on DOD contingency planning for war with Iraq, July 2002: For instance, the "Courses of Action" document does not mention other coalition forces, casualty estimates, how Mr. Hussein may himself be a target, or what political regime might follow the Iraqi leader if an American-led attack was successful, the source said. Nor does the document discuss the sequencing of air and ground campaigns, the precise missions of special operations forces or the possibility of urban warfare in downtown Baghdad, with Iraqi forces possibly deploying chemical weapons. The report also saids the contingency plan may involve an unspecified number of number of Marine and Army divisions, air expeditionary forces, ("As many as 250,000 troops-") and mentions mentions buildups of troops in Qatr and Kuwait that would be of no surprise to Saddam. Your idea of what constitutes 'specifics' and mine vary greatly, Tim. Frankly, having read the 2002 report, I'm not sure what value-added if provided Times readers. It strikes me more as something that was leaked to the Times to further the goals of the White House to put the fear of God into Saddam. The likelihood that the U.S. was planning an invasion and the generalized components of such an invasion would have been evident to anyone paying much attention to that part of the world. Which was the part of my question left unanswered: What about when the White House (or DOD or whoever in government) leaks classified material to reporters to further political ends? Our opponents, just like us, form a picture of our actions bit by bit. A particular small release may fill in a large picture. Maybe so, John Moore. In that case, what do you say to President Bush, who spoke about the SWIFT long before the Times reported it. Posted by: David McLemore at July 12, 2006 5:15 PM | Permalink Right here M.Simon. It leads you to the Office of Special Counsel's press release. Think of it as a murder (not saying it was), a dead body was found, and the prosecutor has determined it wasn't suicide. Someone is indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements related to the murder. We are waiting for trial. If you think Fitzgerald is making political decisions, then why didn't he indicted Rove? Rove is less than a ham sandwich? Are you saying that Al Capone was not a gangster because the gov't only convicted him for tax evasion? Ask Martha Stewart if her time in the slammer was any better for obstruction of justice versus insider trading. A failure in imagination, or a stretch in imagination? The folks at yarbg also have thing for Lovelady. Dave McLemore: Your idea of what constitutes 'specifics' and mine vary greatly, Tim. Fair enought. I'll let others decide. Here's the link, so others can check it out. Which was the part of my question left unanswered: What about when the White House (or DOD or whoever in government) leaks classified material to reporters to further political ends? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 5:31 PM | Permalink There was nothing in Snow's statement about specific current cases. SWIFT is a database for us to mine. If they have pending cases to search, then there is no data lost. Plus, we can get warrants. Nothing but generalizations and hot air. Link to where specific cases that the gov't cite that would be jeopardized. I don't need a secret clearance, since I'm not an editor for a newspaper or a blogger. I have not or will never be in any position to publish classified information. THE COURT: But just because it's alleged in the Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 5:55 PM | Permalink One of my take away points from this thread is that journalists sensationalize disclosing classified information and then defend doing so by claiming that they didn't disclose anything that wasn't already known, or could/should have already been known. What do we call that again? News? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 6:16 PM | Permalink These are words to live by: you cannot reason with the insane. Draw your own conclusions. Posted by: abigail beecher at July 12, 2006 6:22 PM | Permalink A variant you may want to consider, Tim, is that it's not a good idea to generalize about what journalists do? Not all journalists sensationalize their work, nor do all journalists think other journalists' scoops are that significantly newsy. All journalists rarely agree about much of anything - except to defend other journalists against crap charges of treason. Media is a plural noun for a reason. Posted by: David McLemore at July 12, 2006 6:25 PM | Permalink Dave McLemore: Not all journalists sensationalize their work, nor do all journalists think other journalists' scoops are that significantly newsy. Good point, and I agree. Now, how many news organizations decided not to run either NYT stories we've been discussing because - like you - they didn't find them "newsy?" Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 6:31 PM | Permalink No Tim, I'm not making an argument whether disclosing classified information is admissible or not. But the DoJ obviously knows it occured in the Plame case. Yet no indictment of journalists, no calls of treason from the gov't. If the standard printing, leaking classified information, why no outcry of treason from the Right or the gov't? Funny though when Clinton made false statements or lied to the grand jury on a personal matter, not even related to Whitewater, that was high crimes and Rule of Law, Rule of Law! But when the VP's chief of staff (arguably more powerful than the president's chief of staff) is indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements, on a case involving national security such charges are downplayed. Rule of Law doesn't apply to this administration? I don't have a clue, though a better test might be placement - how many ran the NYTimes stories on Page 1A. Posted by: David McLemore at July 12, 2006 6:43 PM | Permalink Hue: In the Plame case, the court and DoJ determined that classified information was revealed, yet no prosecution of journalists. [emphasis added] As to why simliar arguments flip-flop between left and right partisans ... another blog please. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 12, 2006 7:01 PM | Permalink Link to where specific cases that the gov't cite that would be jeopardized. Duh! They're ongoing investigations! The government is not going to spell them out for you. Geez. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 12, 2006 7:27 PM | Permalink Hue But the DoJ obviously knows it occured in the Plame case. Yet no indictment of journalists, no calls of treason from the gov't. If the standard printing, leaking classified information, why no outcry of treason from the Right or the gov't? This is easy. The leak was inadvertent. The New York Times leaked on purpose. What, Rove and Libby were just talking to reporters and Valerie Plame's name slipped out? As for the Times, it didn't leak. It was leaked to, by government officials. But you knew that. Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 12, 2006 8:50 PM | Permalink Oh, so you are indeed sympathetic to the Treason argument, then. My instincts to club you with the Treason crowd are indeed borne out, it seems. I must therefore take back my apology; your wishy washy stance does not deserve it. On your argument that the Times says it is secret, therefore it must be secret: Despite my original skepticism on this, I will accept it if you will stipulate that you will from now on accept also what the Times says as truth. Otherwise, your argument is with the Times, not with me. As to your other rambling, cluttered attempts to win arguments by repetition, I will make a suggestion: if you want to distill your thoughts to a couple of coherent narratives, we can continue this discussion, otherwise I will leave it where it is. If you wish to continue, then, for starters, why don't you identify for us which of the various investigative outcomes you are citing would be materially different had the SWIFT data sifting program not existed ? Please do not ramble incoherently with 10 different irrelevant examples; cite the two that best represent your case explaining to us why you think the investigative outcome was materially altered because of input from the 'secret' SWIFT database sifting program. One advance caveat; if all you have is some self-serving Bush administration official claim du jour, then we can drop it right now, because, as I have stated before, I attach no credibility to administration talking points. Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 9:16 PM | Permalink I'll post this here, although unrelated to Swift it is related to the 'holy profession' alluded to in the title of the post. Here's a Wapo article by Robin Wright about a Khalilzad speech. Here's the text of Khalilzad's speech. -------- Text searchs for "significant sectarian", "sectarian violence", "no question", and "overwhelmed" found nothing. So it's not a quote. She's putting words in his mouth. Wright wrote: Khalilzad also warned that a "precipitous" U.S. withdrawal could ensure a sectarian war drawing in neighboring states, disrupting oil supplies and expanding current fighting into a regional conflagration. Wright used "ensure" when Khalilzad said no such thing. When I went to school, ensure meant make certain. Also his comment was about the "Coalition" not just the US. Very deceptive about what he said. Text search for "abandonment strategy" and "prudently" found nothing. So it's not a quote. More deception. Wright wrote: In a broad-brush assessment on a day when at least 60 died in a dozen bombings, Khalilzad said Americans should be patient and "strategically optimistic" about Iraq. Wright boils the whole optimistic opening paragraph down to one sentence and makes sure she tarnishes it by including the deaths for the day. You wonder why you're losing readership? With writing like this, wonder no more. Deception galore! Holy profession, indeed! Posted by: Bob_K at July 12, 2006 9:24 PM | Permalink In that case, what do you say to President Bush, who spoke about the SWIFT long before the Times reported it. Don't you know, Dave? He is the Decider; he can declassify (on the fly, if necessary) any and all government secrets according to the needs of his political strategy of the hour. Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 9:51 PM | Permalink just curious jay.... did you post this thread just to let the partisans go at each other, or did you really think an intelligent discussion would break out? I am curious: has any government official accused the Times of breaking US law in this case? Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Mark Anderson at July 12, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink Novak, revealing certain facts of the Valerie Plame case today: For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.[emphasis added] So much for the conclusion that the existence of the investigation automatically means the Plame leak was a crime. By the way, where is the media's normal strong interest in nepotism by government officials, in this case material to the greatest controversy of the time? There was a whole lot more interest in a George Bush dental appointment of over 30 years ago. Isn't one of the main excuses for publishing leaks the exposure of possible malfeasance by members of the government? Posted by: John Moore at July 12, 2006 10:54 PM | Permalink No caption necessary .... Wall Street Rift: Journal Reporters Reject Gigot Line The initial wound came June 30, when The Journal’s editorial page praised reporter Glenn Simpson’s handling of the news of the Bush administration’s secret program of tracking international bank transfers. The editorial described Mr. Simpson, unlike the perfidious reporters of The New York Times, as having received the story from the Treasury Department, which was willing to “offer him the same declassified information”—because, the editorial conjectured, the administration “felt Mr. Simpson would write a straighter story than the Times.” Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 11:18 PM | Permalink 300+ comments and still not a single one has even hinted at the "parallel risk" of not running the SWIFT story. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 12, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink On second thoughts, a good caption might be: Treasury Department confirms it contacted WSJ reporter and provided treasonous information for publication. Posted by: village idiot at July 12, 2006 11:28 PM | Permalink just curious jay... did you post this thread just to let the partisans go at each other, or did you really think an intelligent discussion would break out? I don't think about that, Paul. I write the post to say what I have to say that's different from what everyone else is saying. It's drafted as an essay that has its own integrity and logic. In this case, I wanted it to simultaneously serve as an overview of some of the key arguments about the publication of secrets and the attacks on the press. I don't start thinking about the comment thread until after the first dozen comments or so. So the answer to your question is "neither." Bob_K: (in re: Robin Wright of the Washington Post) You wonder why you're losing readership? With writing like this, wonder no more. First of all, the "you" in that sentence is fake. Instead of addressing actual participants, Bob decided to holler at big media abstractly, using a PressThink comment thread to do it. I don't care for that tactic. There are real people here. Talk to them. Second, the Washington Post, and the New York Times--if that's what he meant by "you," but who knows really?--aren't losing but gaining readership, Bob. The Post has almost ten times as many readers as it once did. It fits the right wing narrative to claim the Post is "losing readers," it just happens to be spectacularly wrong, wrong to the power of ten. Oh, so you are indeed sympathetic to the Treason argument, then. My instincts to club you with the Treason crowd are indeed borne out, it seems. I must therefore take back my apology; your wishy washy stance does not deserve it. Ah. Ok. I consistently say that the publication of classified information in the Press is NOT treason over more than two years. And your logic is, because such a position, which I am already on record repudiating, is slightly less batshit crazy than your position, therefore I am in with the treason crowd. Riiiiiight. Sorry. Your logic is just absurd. Despite my original skepticism on this, I will accept it if you will stipulate that you will from now on accept also what the Times says as truth. Why would I do something stupid like that? I should accept what the Times says as truth when? When they say it's secret and when they say it's not secret? No. That's for muddle-brains. The Times contradicts itself all over the place. You can read it if you like. You two deserve each other. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 1:01 AM | Permalink Incidentally, Mudville Gazette pretty much eviscerates the Washington Post's reporting on the ambassador's speech. Those lead paragraphs were so fundamentally at odds in meaning I honestly thought at first they must have been reporting on a different speech. Yep. I just looked at it. It's pretty awful. The Washington Post manages to wholly distort, and almost reverse, the meaning of the ambassador's words. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 1:21 AM | Permalink Hue, But the DoJ obviously knows it occured in the Plame case. Yet no indictment of journalists, no calls of treason from the gov't. Cite the law that was broken. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 1:25 AM | Permalink NC300+ comments and still not a single one has even hinted at the "parallel risk" of not running the SWIFT story Probably because nobody could defend it. Lots of points go unanswered here - especially by those defending the media. Posted by: John Moore at July 13, 2006 2:02 AM | Permalink Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 13, 2006 2:02 AM | Permalink John -- I think we just simul-posted! I think you hit the nail on the head. Also the reason why Jay didn't want to get into specifics on the SWIFT case. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at July 13, 2006 2:19 AM | Permalink Mr. Rosen, Having read your weblog sporadically for the last couple months, I was under the impression you are concerned with the increasing number of readers that are getting their news from blogs. From this I assumed industry readership is down. If this is incorrect, then mea culpa. Maybe you would clarify this for me. I notice you mention in your response to me that the WaPo is up quite a bit, but didn't address the industry as a whole. What is the overall state of the industry? You seems to have taken umbrage with my use of the word 'you'. Since I stated my comment wasn't on quite on topic, I was using it as a generic term, including both the other journalists that comment here and yourself. Sort of a food for thought thing. I thought my comparision of the article with the speech demonstrated one reason why journalism is losing the trust of the average reader. My comment wasn't meant to be an attempt to derail the thread. Your previous item hasn't had a comment in six days, so I thought I'd comment here for people to cogitate on it. If you don't want input from other than journalists, fine. It seems wrong-headed to me though. Was I snarky with my last couple sentences? Yes. I was just expressing my frustration with what I think is an instance of shoddy reporting by someone considered a professional. Why should I ever trust her again? What, if anything, does this say about the state of the profession as a whole? Maybe you would be willing to give your opinion on whether her article meets professional journalistic standards? If you can justify her article, I'm open to changing my opinion. From my one comment you seem to have come to the conclusion that I must be a conservative. To tell the truth, I don't feel I fit in the liberal/conservative dichotomy. I'll tell you a couple things about me though. I don't believe in god. I believe women should be able to do whatever they want with their pregnancies. I don't believe we currently have sufficient knowledge of the climate system to implement a massive program to control CO2 emissions. I believe in helping those in need if they are trying their best. I'm not a one size fits all voter. In fact, most of my votes in the past 40 years have been anti-incumbent. I voted for Joe Leiberman for Senate in 1988-94 and against him in 2000, because I didn't like the fact he ran for 2 offices at the same time. If you want to categorizes me as conservative, that's ok with me. I don't think I fit the mold. P.S. Posted by: Bob_K at July 13, 2006 4:25 AM | Permalink Hue, the quote you make from the linked article mentions a case where press disclosure clearly harmed our national interest. It includes the line And while reserving the right to make the final decision ourselves, we are anxious to listen to arguments about why information should not be aired. In what universe does this not mean that the press will continue to reveal any and all national security facts they acquire? I asked for an example where you would support non-disclosure or post-disclosure prosecution. You responded with one of many examples where subsequent events proved a journalistic disclosure harmful to the national interest. But that does not answer the question - once the harm has been done, it's too late to unpublish. You then asked, regarding SWIFT: We of course know that there are, and that Treasury Secretary Tony Snow did so. So, please, someone explain under what conditions you would support restricting the press or prosecuting for a disclosure. Is it as simple as, demonstrate that harm has already been done by a press disclosure, as in the quoted example? Because that would seem a little after-the-fact and useless to me. Marc Siegel Posted by: Marc Siegel at July 13, 2006 7:18 AM | Permalink Bob Kat brings up a point which eventually surfaces in most of these threads: Once you catch a journo screwing the pooch, what do you do? The primary answer from other journos is that we're honest, we work hard to get it right, we want to correct the mistakes [coughsnorkhack] and anybody who complains is a right-wing nutcase.
Bob says he can't trust Wright again. Who would? The WaPo runs Wright's stuff. Does that mean we should be wary of the WaPo? Well, yeah, after a few examples. What do you do when you discover a journo screwed the pooch? If there were a good answer, this entire blog would be unnecessary. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 13, 2006 8:45 AM | Permalink Marc, I've misread your earlier comment, which is not the same as your last point. A single situation in which you would characterize a press publication of national security secrets as illegal or undesirable to be protected. The press would argue that would be the NSA warrantless wiretapping and European secret prisons. Which is different than , someone explain under what conditions you would support restricting the press or prosecuting for a disclosure. How about this, for the press restricting itself. Then search for Tim Schmoyer on subsequent comments. The people who argue for the prosecution of the press on the SWIFT story would argue for prosecution of the press on every story related to national security, except for the Plame story. CRS, Protection of National Security Information (June 30, 2006) This report provides background with respect to previous legislative efforts to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified information; describes the current state of the laws that potentially apply, including criminal and civil penalties that can be imposed on violators; and some of the disciplinary actions and administrative procedures available to the agencies of federal government that have been addressed by federal courts. Finally, the report considers the possible First Amendment implications of applying the Espionage Act to prosecute newspapers for publishing classified national defense information. Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 13, 2006 11:03 AM | Permalink Jacon Weisberg, editor of Slate: "The New York Times, while acting in good faith, made the wrong call by printing the SWIFT story." Excerpt: The first question editors need to ask might be framed in this way: Is there a good case that the practice or actions we want to disclose are wrong—in terms of law, procedure, or morality? With Abu Ghraib (The New Yorker), the CIA secret prisons in Eastern Europe (the Washington Post), and the NSA wiretapping story (the Times again), the answers were clearly yes, yes, and yes. To focus on the last example, the permissibility of warrantless government eavesdropping rested on a far-out (and I would argue specious) legal theory that now faces a challenge in federal courts. Overseers on the congressional intelligence committees were not properly notified, and whether or not the privacy concerns raised should have been decisive, they were significant. Weisberg also says that "conservative claims about the media's supposed motivations in publishing both the NSA and SWIFT stories reflect only ideology and ignorance." Hue, The people who argue for the prosecution of the press on the SWIFT story would argue for prosecution of the press on every story related to national security, except for the Plame story. For the second time, what law would you prosecute under? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Permalink Richard A, I think you're close to the mark with your assessment. Conscientious journalists eventually gets tainted by the repetitive indescretions of the malefactors. I'm only vaguely familiar with this woman prior to this article, but given the shoddiness of this particular article, I think it's likely she is a multiple offender who has received no negative feed back from colleagues. It calls into question the worth of what journalists like to say is multiple layers of fact checking, and even whether it should be believed that any such checking is actually done. How can such an article ever pass vetting? Inattention by the higher ups? Lowly fact checkers fearful of correcting the person with the byline? Rubber-stamping by the editor because the reporter is considered a heavyweight and difficult to deal with? You people will have to figure that one out. This article might be a good place to start, if someone can find out. Public trust in the media is justifiably eroded when such an article is allowed to be passed off as news. When reputable journalists ignore shoddy practices by others, why shouldn't the public consider their silence as assent and paint them with the same brush? I believe most journalists to be hardworking, conscientious, and probably somewhat concerned about not wanting to make waves within their particular organization. I find it hard to believe you people don't occasionally come across items you know to be extremely misleading or outright incorrect, yet say nothing because you don't want to rock the boat. Maybe some sort of after publication vetting of articles by journalists from a different organisation could negate any repercusions that might otherwise be possible if done internally. It would allow judging more objectively with less of a personal connection. With a penalty of say, five lashes with a wet noodle for something minor, or public humiliation for both the publisher and reporter for an egregious violation. Personally, I would consider this article egregious. A counter-productive waste of the reader's time. Less accurately informed after reading it than before. Of course this is all my personal opinion and I do no writing and have no blog. I do think I'm likely more in tune with the perception of general public than those in the profession are, try as they might. I do hope some will cogitate on my thoughts a while. They may not be a wonder cure for regaining the public trust once held by the media, or even be realistically viable, but it's a place to start looking. Please excuse the derail, don't know where else this would get read. Bob Posted by: Bob_K at July 13, 2006 12:05 PM | Permalink Ali Bubba, I'm not a lawyer and never pretend to be. It really doesn't matter if YOU aren't convinced that Plame was not convert and outing her status was not a crime. Are indictments of ancillary crimes instead of underlying crimes unfair? Not for me to decide. (Can't convict Martha Stewart for insider trading, convict her for obstruction.) That's our criminal justice system, and increasing criminalization of politics. This system applies for Clinton, then it applies for Libby. Ask Libby and his attorneys if it matters in their case that Libby was not indicted for leaking Plame's status, but for ancillary charges. Try making that argument for Libby's defense in court. While serving time for obstruction, I bet Martha Stewart felt vindicated she was not convicted of insider trading. The same applies for your last question. I don't care to debate, or cite statutes, for someone who claims there were WMDs in Iraq, a claim even the WH doesn't make. A cop out? Maybe, I'd rather not waste my time. Yikes, my previous post should say Soviets, but my grammar and errors were consistently poor. Bob_K: Big news organizations, national and local, have seen their readership expand many times over because the Web makes it available to users everywhere. At the same time paid circulation of the print version has been dropping sharply (the climax of a 35 year trend) as users move online and as the inefficiences of the newspaper format bug more people. Advertisers have been slower to move, but readers are shifting online and expanding many times over. The economy of the Web hasn't worked itself out yet, partly because no one knows how to factor in the new competition from amateurs and passionate citizens doing things because they want to, and not necessarily for profit. It's all part of the churn and tumult in the news biz and journalism profession. Concern about bloggers isn't about losing readers to them, but the new climate of criticism and informed oversight that blogs represent, the fear of the negative blog swarm-- ulitmately it's the contest for authority that journalists feel themselves to be in. Hue, You could have saved yourself a few words and just said "You win. I guess you're right. Outing Plame's identity violated no law I can think of."
No, you can't cite a statute. Because you can't defend your position. And you can't debate, because you don't have any specifics with which to support your call for prosecuting the Plame leak. for someone who claims there were WMDs in Iraq, a claim even the WH doesn't make. The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today. "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. So, to sum up, you were wrong about the Plame leak being against the law. You're wrong about WMDs in Iraq. And you're even wrong about whether the Administration is asserting that the munitions found constitute WMD. Nevertheless, you can claim to disengage with a perfect record.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 12:40 PM | Permalink Here we go. Jason is playing debate again. So, Jason, is your point that 20-plus year old corroded barrels of chemical weapons are, by definition weapons of mass destruction? Or, are you saying these are the very items cited by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq? Do you think the old barrels of blister agents are worth a war? What about the mobile nuclear weapons labs or the precision-milled tubes the Adminstration cited as necessary reasons to invade? We know Saddam had chemical weapons. We knew he used them in the war with Iran and against the Kurds. It's the reason by CBR training was de rigeur during Gulf Wars I & II. But, please, let's not present the presence of this aging war materiel as a cause of war. Even the Army acknowledges, per your cite, The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added. And as the Washington Post reported June 22: Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. So, sure, there were 'weapons of mass destruction' on the ground in Iraq. Just not the ones Bush said were there. You get an 'A' for semantics, Jason. And an A+ for sophistry. Posted by: David McLemore at July 13, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink Jason, you're being disingenuous -- again -- on two different fronts. There is no question that Valerie Plame's employment status at the CIA was classified. Patrick Fitzgerald addressed that point directly and pointed at his press conference last October in which the Libby indictment was announced and discussed. Secondly, the day after Hoekstra and Santorum wrote their bogus June 26 WMD piece for the Wall St Jrnl editorial page, a "senior Defense Department official" told Fox News (of all people) that "this does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," and the munitions found "are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." Can't get much clearer than that. A bunch of corroded tin cans with traces of degraded sarin from 1989 are not what either side meant in the great WMD debate. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 13, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink Ali Bubba, you are above the WH and DoD on WMDs, and DoJ on Plame's classified status. Must be hard to be so smart while the rest of us are fools. From Fitzgerald's press conference: QUESTION: Was the leaking of her identity in and of itself a crime? Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 13, 2006 5:39 PM | Permalink Also from Fitzgerald's press conference: QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime? So, according to Fitzgerald, there were certain neccessary components to convict under the espionage act that were missing. Hence, no indictment under that statute. And note the use of the word "intentional" in the section quoted by Tim Schmoyer above. Fitzgerald cannot establish that the leak was intentional or even reckless (nobody is denying that Russert knew, and was claiming it was common knowledge among Washington journos, prior to the fateful conversation with Libby, no?) In order to convict, you would have to demonstrate motive. Pretty high hurdle in this case. Anyone else want to try? And if you want to bring up the Espionage act, why does Section 2 not apply to the New York Times? Here is the pertinent passage: Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: So the necessary elements are: 1.) The Times communicated or transmitted the SWIFT and NSA information. (Done simply by publishing) 2.) That the Times communicated the information to a foreign government or a faction of same or a military or naval force (Al Qaeda would clearly qualify) 3.) That said faction or military force existed in a foreign country (last I checked there were only 50 stars on the flag, and they're all spoken for) 4.) The information may be transmitted directly or indirectly (in other words, in any way whatsoever) 5.) And that it be information relating to the national defence. Elements 2 and 3 of course, are wholly missing from Libby's situation (Unless, of course, you stipulate that the New York Times is an enemy agent). So, since you're so keen on rigorously enforcing the 1917 Espionage Act, why would the NY Times not qualify? You could say "but when the act is applied to a newspaper, there are first amendment concerns." But those first amendment concerns have already been settled by the Supreme Court, in the Butts case and in Associated Press v. United States. And to the extent there are first amendment concerns, Libby gets exactly the same considerations as does the New York Times, under the law. So if you can't argue on the 1st Amendment, why could you not prosecute the Times under this amendment? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 7:19 PM | Permalink er, statute, not amendment. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 7:19 PM | Permalink So, Jason, is your point that 20-plus year old corroded barrels of chemical weapons are, by definition weapons of mass destruction? Well, they weren't barrels (though that would also be a violation of the terms of the cease fire); they were munitions. But I'm pretty comfortable making that argument, sure. This is straying far from the 1st Amendment and press issues. If you want to argue that weapons of mass destruction are something other than weapons of mass destruction - or that 500 chemical weapons don't qualify as weapons of mass destruction, come on over to Countercolumn. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 7:27 PM | Permalink Bob Kat and Jay: The net does two things. If you insist--Jay--that the readership of various organs is up while, coincedentally or not, its paid subscribers are diminishing, then stories like Wright's get more play. But the speech itself can be instantly accessed by the same folks reading Wright in pixel. It used to be considerably harder. In other words, more people can see her, and others, screwing the pooch. It is possible to get an address backwards. That's an accident. It's possible to be so completely clueless about a story that the reporting is meaningless, at best. It is different when you deliberately misrepresent what happened, which is what Wright did. In most professions, that is unforgiveable. Unless somebody wants to make the case this is the first time for Wright, it appears that it isn't unforgiveable at the WaPo. Maybe she's being fined a week's pay or something? No? Talk to somebody in the securities industry about getting the details right. The web insures far more people will see her "error". Good for the web. Apparently she hasn't figured that out. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 13, 2006 9:27 PM | Permalink Help me out here ... Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq, "Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official ..." If this is the "official administration response," why is it anonymous? What is "senior?" Is that a General officer? Undersecretary or higher? Is there a special decoder ring for this? Confronting the Seduction of Secrecy: Toward Improved Access to Government Information on the Record The more we looked at that the more we realized that anonymous source reporting put us in the position not just of withholding information from our readers, in the sense of withholding the source, the source's access and possible bias in some stories, and sometimes giving them misinformation from these sources. As we tried to correct this problem we learned the hard lesson that I suspect the Washington press corps still confronts today.... Posted by: Tim Schmoyer at July 13, 2006 9:57 PM | Permalink Robin Wright isn't any rookie. She's been an A-list middle east reporter for years. She's also on record as advocating the US turn Iraqi security over to the UN right after the elections of January 2005. You know, since the UN did such a great job protecting Srebrenica and all. She didn't get her way in Iraq. But damn if she's not going to do her best to sabotage the effort to win there. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at July 13, 2006 10:24 PM | Permalink Wish I could help you, Tim. But I don't understand it myself. I've never understood why an administration source would wish anonymity to give good news - or even semi-official news like that which you cite. I understand even less why a reporter let's them get away with it. It supposedly has something to do with 'access' to power. I think it's so much bullshit. The relationship between source and reporter is a strange one, filled with shifting balances of power and a lot of gamesmanship. I think in a lot of cases, they're making movies. That's all. As to Jason's kind offer to continue our discussion on his blog: No thanks. If your hope is to reframe the conversation into something I didn't say, why should I play?
Posted by: Dave McLemore at July 13, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink Tim Schmoyer: How is a reader supposed to be able to tell the difference between an anonymous source and "we made this crap up"? We have to take somebody's word for it, and, right here among these posts we'se seeing that a top-ranked ME reporter is lying. Taking somebody's unsupported word is risky, but when they have a history of lying, it's stupid. I dunno. Journos can keep using anonymous sources--the First Amendment says they can, but perhaps we should cease reading the first time we see "anonymous source" or its equivalent. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at July 13, 2006 10:30 PM | Permalink "The record since then suggests that we have failed, both as individual journalists and as an industry, to recognize the degree to which we have allowed ourselves to be controlled by the people we report on." Tim Schmoyer: Thank you for that quote by Kovach. Pretty much sums up what preceded it and what followed it. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 13, 2006 11:04 PM | Permalink Richard Aubrey raises an interesting point about anonymous sources. However, reporters can lie without anonymous sources - consider the Duranty's lies about the Ukranian famine. We still rely on reporters to provide primary source material - they get the "facts" from somewhere and report them. The problems come in if we can't trust them to not lie, or more commonly, we can't trust the overall information chain to not lie by its selection of what to publish and what not to publish. Jay's original question about how the press can maintain respect goes directly to it. As is obvious from this blog and many other sources, the press has largely lost its respect - or at least its credibility - although a lot of this is correlated with the so-called "Bush divide." Posted by: John Moore at July 13, 2006 11:41 PM | Permalink That was Fox News that couldn't get the Pentagon source on the record. If Fox, which is not exactly hostile to this administration, can't get the official WH response on the record, then that tells you something about Fortress Bush and Rollback. This is old ground: Michael Deaver, who as deputy chief of staff in the Reagan Administration was known for his insistence on staying on message, says of Bush, as others have, “This is the most disciplined White House in history.” Disciplined—the White House is almost like a private corporation—and relatively silent, too. “The vast majority of people in this building—the press doesn’t believe this—don’t want to talk to the press,” Dan Bartlett told me. “They want to do their job.” You can't quote people who aren't willing to talk on the record, ever. Thanks to all participants. New post, a little on the lighter side. Free Pass. "Why would a journalist describe prevailing wisdom in his own business as way dumber than it really is? Because it's the cheapest way there is to sound smart: defy the conventional wisdom that you just spent $0.0 and zero man hours compiling." |
|
Print
