|
Post by Doug on Jul 27, 2010 16:54:33 GMT -5
I don't favor ANY government secrets unless we are in a declared war. No spys unless we are in a declared war. No troops outside the border unless we are in a declared war.
You can't have a free country if the government can keep any secrets from the people. Every government meeting should be open to any citizen who wants to listen.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 28, 2010 17:07:54 GMT -5
The historical answer to this is the newspaper publisher. back when Russia was sending nukes to Cuba, the news picke dup the story and called the White House for confirmation. Kennedy called them back and basically told them that he was in the process of setting up a blockade and that he needed them to sit on the story for a few days until that blockade was in place or things would start to really suck for the Nation. The media sat on the story. It all falls under what was once called journalistic ethics which is what they teach in journalism school but something they don't teach in blog school. I still remember discussions at the Morning News when we would have some story with rather far reaching issues and there were quite a few people involved in whether or not the story should run and if so, what should be in it or not. This could be something as simple as a closeted City Council woman being caught in a parked car with a naked female staffer to leaked documents in a the OK City bomber's trial. Some thing would rise to the level of "News" while others would not. I can't imagine any blogger out there trying to make a name for himself going through the same exercise. As much as current state of affairs has placed such a low value on 'news gathering' and 'journalism', in most news orgs those discussions still take place and may things that should not be reported are not. Fact of the matter is, in about 5 minutes you can set up your own blog on wordpress or google or somewhere else and publish your own leaks if you want to. It might be easier to have someone shut it down, but the need for a media outlet to leak something is a think of the past. A cause and effect dilemma. At some point, popular media essentially stopped any pretense of investagatory journalism, and retreated to safe money stories that were sensationalistic, and cost nothing to gather. Meanwhile, too many reporters assigned to cover such events as business regulation and war began (or resumed) satisfying themselves with a hastily reworded press release and a early shot at happy hour. Heck, the USSR can suddenly collapse, and the guy covering Moscow is in the bar. The economy can collapse, while our "journalists" covering Wall Street urge us NOT to sell our Bear-Stearn stock. If some president makes up a wild-ass story about evil saddam's empire, nary a reporter will check the spelling on his press release before he publishes it, and heads to the golf course with his friends from the DOD. All war coverage is essentially a pentagon production, tending to focus on the brilliance and compassion of the good guys. Good entertainment, great editing, and high production values. And, nearly everyone recognizes it is second-hand bullshit. But, at least the anchorwoman is a babe. To be fair, some of the retreat of popular journalism from any meaningful watchdog role was economic. Also, I can't help but think there was some well-earned shame over the 60 Minutes-style ambush interviews where some intrepid reporter was getting the goods on some small time con man at a used car lot. Perhaps, in popular media, investigatice journalism became kind of sleazy and anoopy. So, for a generation, we've substituted Geraldo Rivera for Woodward and Bernstein. You know what they say about vacuums, Tramp. I think the bloggers have been assigned all the slaezy/snoopy roles, while Geraldo heads to happy hour, after broadcasting some salacious leak a blogger sent him. Rewriting press releases? Playing golf with friends at DOD? Those descriptions don't match any journalists I know. I believe you're overdoing it in your zeal to tash the press. We can all agree to the obvious, that big papers and network news operations have had to make serious cutbacks in their newsgathering budgets as people have increasingly gotten their news from the Internet. The long, slow decline of print media subscriptions is becoming a plunge. But I don't know of anybody still in the news business who does any of the things you describe. Most of them, in fact, are downright dedicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2010 18:38:00 GMT -5
I suspect most journalists fit that description, Ches., especially back in the days of newspapers. And, on the local level, I very much agree with you. I guess my comments are mostly as to what is left standing in the cable news world and major broadcasters. You have to admit that, on the national level, they seldom seem to do much in the way of any real investagatory work.
But, all the praise we can muster isn't going to rebut the fact that the majority of reporters assigned to cover the beginning of the Iraq war were essentially reduced to the role of pathetic cheerleaders and enablers of what turned out to be a really bad bet. The final step, in my mind was the reduction of reporters into "embedded" agents of the DOD. I'll stand by that description: I simply don't think it's remotely possible to "embed" somebody with a group of armed teenagers, and expect them not to become supportive. Say whatever you will, but the press was, FOR THE MOST PART, simply a facilitator of the government policy, and arduosly avoided any criticism, or meaningful coverage of any kind. But, then again, it was only a war, right? It's silly to expect the press to be immune to the same jingoistic, cheerleading instincts that effect us all when sabers are rattling. We expect our scribesd to get in there, and throw some punches at the bad guys, and "do their part" to make war seem like a damn good idea. It's silly to blame them for giving us what we want, i reckon.
Still, I actually do recall some folks locally who spent a lot of time in Russia, telling us that the USSR would collapse completely, about a year before the actual event. The word was "inevitable". They weren't government agents, or reporters. Just some academics that studied and taught there, at times. Did every reporter covering Moscow have their head completely immersed in their ass? I'd like to think not, and imagine them, instead, dutifully attending happy hour, and just missed where the real 'story" was happening. I'd raise the same issue about the economic crash. It's not like those things sneak up on us. Again, I don't want to dismiss our scribes (like that Cramer fella) as ignorant douchebags. Again, I'd prefer to imagine that he was just busy partying. Bull market and all, you know...
We could talk about the Sharrod incident, but not necessary. Basically, some propagandist hands some edited tape to a broadcast "journalist" who runs it as "news". Didn't check sources, watch the original tape, or get some kind of comment from the propagandist's target... Just ran the damn thing as a news story. No big deal, right? As long as you and I know a few decent reporters, we'll be all right. But, as to many national stories, we are never really gonna get the early line. What's the deal, do you think? Are events really so occult that no one assigned to cover them can ever seem to get them remotely correct? Are all those guys lazy, ignorant slobs, unable to ask questions to the right people? That's harsh. I want to simply assume they get caught up in the expense account, and thrill of access to the rich and famous, and just plumb have no instinct for finding out who may know what is really going on.
But, I'm not saying it's a personal thing, or the reporters are bad folks. The business has just changed, and the values us old guys tend to think of as "journalism" have changed substantially.
easy for me to say, right? Not like I have to worry about some angry public official cutting me off, or excluding me from the latest press release.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jul 28, 2010 21:43:37 GMT -5
I'm kinda going to have to run with dharma on this one, too. I've been close to stories covered in the media 5 times in my life. Two made national news. One, where I was the impetus for an article in the wall street journal, was quite accurate, for what it was. One, very recently, where a friend made national news for being a victim of organized hate crimes, was ok. The other three were pretty shoddy, IMHO.
At any rate, that vid that I linked to comments right up front that wikileaks has published more whistleblower information by itself than all the world's mainstream media combined. Easy to think that either they publish way too much, or the mainstream media has fallen completely asleep at the switch.
The truth is probably both of those facts combined.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jul 28, 2010 22:56:16 GMT -5
Dharm, you certainly raise a good points about imbedded reporters. The military took a real gamble on that one, and it paid off for the reasons you say - of course they're going to like and bond with the guys who are out there protecting their skinny asses. Beat reporters in general tend to identify with the people they're covering. Jack Anderson used to say the Pentagon guys would start wearing shirts with epaulets, and the State Department reporters would go around in Harris tweed smoking meerschaum pipes. In any case, they're not going to burn their sources bywriting bad things about them all the time. That would be a track for taking up another profession because people in this one would begin to stop talking to you. It's the special assignment guys you've got to watch out for, the ones that parachute into somebody's beat and get extracted as soon as their story hits the stands. They have no particular reason not to trash the bejeezus out of the subject - they likely never have to speak to the poor jerk again. That's what happened to McChrystal.
But for the rest, for one thing I think you're overlooking the intense competition among reporters for getting the story - we used to call it the scoop. I guess there are lazy people in all lines of work, but any reporter with any ambition at all is going to go to great lengths to find out stuff and publish it before the competition. In a big news organization, sometimes the stiffest competition is among colleagues. Being an editor at one of those outfits can be more like being a liontamer, just trying to keep the reporters from eating each other alive. The good old market system working at its best.
Sidhe, I feel genuinely sorry for anybody who has been on the receiving end of a news story. You have my sympathies - I've actually been on the other side of the fence myself on occasion. Everything I've said heretofore notwithstanding, it is atrocious how some reporters can get things so wwrong, at least from the perspective of the people being covered. I've spent most of my life trying to get things right, but I've screwed up on occasion badly enough that it makes me wince even now to think about it. I can only live in hope that I've learned from my mistakes as a journalist and am not likely to make those PARTICULAR ones again. I do think reporters, especially the young and feisty ones, could use a little sensitivity training about how their casual mistakes can hurt someone's life.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jul 29, 2010 8:01:12 GMT -5
So, how's that "novel of political intrigue" coming? I have been known to read one or two of those.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jul 29, 2010 11:53:36 GMT -5
Sidhe, I feel genuinely sorry for anybody who has been on the receiving end of a news story. You have my sympathies - I've actually been on the other side of the fence myself on occasion. Everything I've said heretofore notwithstanding, it is atrocious how some reporters can get things so wwrong, at least from the perspective of the people being covered. Actually, the time when I was interviewed by the WSJ was pretty cool. The stories where I went "WTF? That's not quite what happened..." were all local stories with someone else that I knew getting raked over the coals. I'm just saying that if someone has never been privy to the inside scoop on a news story, then they probably have no idea how devilish the time-crunched entity that is the reporter/editor combination can be.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 29, 2010 13:18:38 GMT -5
... Actually, the time when I was interviewed by the WSJ was pretty cool. ... How the heck did you make it into the White Stream Journal? I got in there once, but I had to grow a 231 lb. pumpkin to do so. Kudos! (oh, and they got my fertilizer regime all wrong.)
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jul 29, 2010 14:56:35 GMT -5
... Actually, the time when I was interviewed by the WSJ was pretty cool. ... How the heck did you make it into the White Stream Journal? I got in there once, but I had to grow a 231 lb. pumpkin to do so. Kudos! (oh, and they got my fertilizer regime all wrong.) And it was really a cucumber.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jul 29, 2010 15:12:18 GMT -5
Back to the original topic, the guy I pointd out on page one is now the prime suspect on this leak just like I originaly thought. While people may have mixed viewpoints on the moral justifications of leaking classified information, the legal aspects are rather clear. He broke the law. Big time. He should spend a very long time in prison. He's talked his talk. Time for him to walk the walk.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Jul 29, 2010 18:37:12 GMT -5
But is the law legal. I don't see anything there that says, "unless the government says you don't' have the right." Reading that (which is the highest law of the land) it's absolute there are no buts included unless you see one that I'm missing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2010 12:31:57 GMT -5
It's good that any of us look at claims of leaking "classified" documents with some scrutiny. Maybe I don't totally share a visceral distrust of everything a government may do, but on the area of creating "state secrets", the history is pretty abyssimal. The seminal Supreme Court case on the issue turned out to involve documents which clearly did NOT involve national security, and they ultimately became available through third parties. In that case, it was pretty clear the government misstated the nature of the documents and deliberately expanded the shield of "national security" for reasons unrelated to it.
But, the government still won the case, and have continued to use and abuse the sheild ever since.
|
|