COMensarations
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Discussions on TCS
A lengthy fisking of a lengthy comment over the War on Terror in Iraq.
There’s a bit of a stormy discussion going on over at Tech Central Station. It is driven by an article by Arnold Kling on how things are going in Iraq.
One of the comments was a thoughtful argument by Pauled.
I tried to reply there, but my reply, along with his comments, was too long. So I’m providing my reply here....
I hate it because I understand both sides and agree with both. It is an impossible situation.—Pauled
That’s a good start. Much better than some other people around here.
I don’t disagree with your stance and I do, in fact, understand why you see it that way. But ask youself this: What is the main duty of the press and why was it therefore given Constitutional protection?—Pauled
The main duty of the Press, and indeed, of EVERYONE is to tell the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT the truth.
Whenever someone tells a lie or hides factual information, they tear at the very fabric of civilization. This is especially true with the Press.
Here is where you are wrong about the whole thing. It goes back to when you said “The media has no rights beyond those of the average citizen.”—Pauled
The Press has no more rights than you or I. Period! If they have more rights than we do, then they are above the law and therein lies the end of our freedom. When ANYONE is ‘above the law’ the nation is in danger.
As someone once said....
“A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”—President James Madison [Notes on Virginia]
Withholding information that should be provided to everyone, is tantamount to lying. There are, of course, certain exceptions, e.g., the Manhatten Project.
Do you agree that “Freedom of the Press” means the freedom to do their job without government interference? So what is that job?
The job of the press is to be the eyes and ears of the general public; especially when it concerns governmental affairs.—Pauled
And international affairs. And matters of national security.
Are you suggesting that the Press has been forthcoming in dealing with the current threat? I hope not.
Therefore, if they have not been fully forthcoming and open and unbiased with respect to those items. They are, in my honest opinion, withholding vital information.
To do that job the press must be given extrodinary access to government. (I.E. the whitehouse press room, reserved access to congress and meetings, etc.) This doesn’t mean the general public has no access, but the press has first dibbs. The reason is to give the largest number of people possible access to what the government is doing.—Pauled
There’s more to news sources than the White House Press Room.
And if the Press is NOT doing it’s job, what are we supposed to do?
As an old colonel told this, then young, captain....
There are two ways to exercise power.
The first is to make decisions for people that they would be better off making for themselves.
The second is to withhold information from people that would allow them to make the best decision for themselves.
Guess which the so-called major media is exercising?
But, while most states have pretty strict open-meeting laws, the federal government does not. Regardless of the level, to get information on those closed door sessions means a reporter has to get someone to tell tell them what went on. A vast majority of the time these “closed door” sessions aren’t about anything all that important to a vast majority of the public and don’t include “national security” issues.—Pauled
There is a violation of trust that should be dealt with.
But some do and that is where the wicket gets a bit sticky.
Let’s take the recent terrorist phone call monitoring debacle as an example. Should the people know that their phone records are being opened for examination? Yeah, that is a privacy rights issue and the people should know what the government is doing. No problem, run the story.—Pauled
Which people? As I recall, the only records involved calls from outside the US made by non-US citizens.
Are you suggesting that non-US citizens are subject to US law?
Under the “Freedom of the Press” clause in the first amendment, they are safe. But the Times wanted more confirmation and wanted to flesh out the story. With that in mind, they told the administration what they had and asked for comment. The Administration asked them not to run the story. To me, at that point, they are crossing the line if they do run the story. This is especially true of the administration makes this a national security issue in no uncertain terms.—Pauled
They DID run the story. Not only THAT story by the SWIFT story as well. Sort of like someone blabbing we had broken the Imperial Japanese Naval codes during WWII.
I call it ‘treason’. And I say, “Death. Death to NYT. Seize and sell all their assets. Let the perps stand trial and if convicted, sentenced severely.
But I doubt the administration did that. Why? Because, they will find the media will no longer give them a heads up or any chance to make their case in the future. Better to try and minimize the impact from this one than to lose the chance to quash a more important story later.—Pauled
It doesn’t matter if the so-called major media gives the government, any administration, a ‘heads-up’. In fact, it’s only a courtesy. Nothing more.
Remember the term plausable deniability? As long as the media is not told they can’t run a story, they can run it. “Freedom of the Press”, freedom to do their job.—Pauled
That’s not ‘plausible deniability’, but that’s another thread.
I know I’m not articulating this very well. It take in-depth examples and explanations that there isn’t the space for here.
“the best analogy I can give is this: You don’t charge an undercover cop being a part of a drug deal. It is part of the job to reach the higher ranking dealers; you do bust the dealers he is associated with. In the same light, you don’t bust the press for revealing a leak, you find the leak and plug it. While some of the information released may be damaging, the press has performed a double service; they have informed the public and have shown a weakness in your system.—Pauled
Bad analogy.
As I said, the Press has no more rights than you or I.
But some things do go too far over the line, and I agree the press needs to be held accountable. If a media outlet released detailed plans of an impending invasion that obviously would create problems for our military, for example, that would be an actionable offense. to announce “The military units in Baghdad are preparing to move, en-mass, on Sadr City” then saying they would go in through four major corridors naming the streets and units and saying “the attack will begin at 6 a.m. on Nov. 22nd.” That would leave no wiggle room. Any fool should be able to see that this is too much informationa nd could lead to a disaster. You hold that story until you get the O.K. from the proper authorities; and that probably won’t come until after the attack begins.—Pauled
That’s a good example of ‘treason’. But it’s a problem we’ve had to deal with since the founding of the nation.
Indeed, General Sherman, during the Civil War, said, of the Press…
“They are all spies.
If I killed every one of them, there’d be news from Hell the next day.”
There are a lot of gray areas TJ, but you can’t prosecute the press for doing its job. Would you rather all media was state-run?—Pauled
You prosecute the Press for hindering the war effort. Which they have done on numerous occasions. Something not so importantly, but on other occasions, outrageously.
We can agree that there are a lot of problems with the media and always has been. Incorrect information, not doing a better and more in-depth job, not giving both sides of a controversial issue, installing opinion and/or bias and twisting into news stories, etc. ad naseum.—Pauled
Don’t forget aiding and abetting the enemy. And there are numerous examples of THAT. One of the more egregious being CNN’s embedding cameras in the enemy to show them killing Americans.
The media’s main job is not the fluff and whose dog bit the mailman; it is government reporting. It is informing the public on things they can’t all go to or be a part of that effect everyone’s lives.—Pauled
Bull-pucky. It’s reporting ALL the news. Not just the information they want people to see, due to their bias.
Yes, they could do a better job. Yes, mistakes do happen. But, even on the controversial stuff, they get it right a lot more than they get it wrong.—Pauled
These are not, repeat NOT, ‘mistakes’, that I’m talking about.
BTW-Lawsuits. The reason you don’t see more of them is because it has always been tough to win. This has always been the case and isn’t a new development. The laws are not being ignored nor have they been changed. There has always be a standard that the media had to “reasonably have known” that information is flat wrong to win a law suit against them. While that standard has changed a little in the past 40 years (in the media’s favor) it has always been the case. There have never been a large number of successful lawsuits against the media. The biggest reason there are fewer lawsuits now is because the overall law has changed. Now, the one bringing the suit, will often have to pay all court costs and the media outlets legal expenses if they lose. That can be a hefty sum.—Pauled
Give us a nuke in NYC, DC and/or LA and I think that will change. But that will be too late for a LOT of people.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A clash of doctrines is not a disaster. It’s an opportunity.]
-
Chuck,
Pretty much the same arguements TJ makes and, as I said, it is hard to argue against them.
The special protection afforded the “Press” is the ability to do their job unencumbered by the government. If the press is unable to report on government officials and decisions without having to worry about being prosecuted, there is no free press; it becomes a government regulated propaganda machine.
It is a tough balancing act, and the media and the government too often slip. One, the other, or both sometimes give out too much information, not enough information or the wrong information. It is kind of like the criminal justice system; you have an adversarial situation where the two parties must work together and against each other. It causes problems, has glitches, but seems to work better than most other systems out there.
I agree, they should tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I believe they do this a vast majority of the time (except the “Whole Truth” part; and discussing the whys and pros and cons of that would take a novel).
there are several “Violations of Trust” on all sides that should be dealt with. The media as a whole gets a raw deal from the public perception because of the actions of a few outlets and agencies. The media is often not given access to hearings and meetings they should be made a part of and the media responds with “confidential informants” and, often, getting only part of the story.
Look, I’ve spent nearly 20-years in this business and I hate the big MSM outlets. I’ve worked my whole career for small and medium market outfits. (90% of that at small weeklies) The small newspapers and radio stations catch flack for the AP and UPI stories run nationwide, even though these small outlets don’t subscribe to the wire service and never used the story. These reporters are sometimes lied to, often accused of miss-quoting (even when they have accusers exact words on tape) and generally given a bad time. Why? What did they do? Sometimes it will be a photo some didn’t like (but the reporter in question didn’t take) or it could be an op-ed the editor wrote (but, again, this reporter had no part in); however, as often as not, it will be some newswire story that appeared in the regional daily. The little paper had nothing to do with it, never used it, but is held accountable for it by the public.
All that being said, I have to defend the right of any media outlet to publish the news they dig up. They should get confirmation on military or national defense matters and make sure they have a quoted source. (The best weapon from charges and lawsuits the media has is someone to blame; this is J-School 101. Always get a source on the record and, if possible, at least two confirmations. If that isn’t possible you had better have a lot of faith in your source and, at least, one independent confirmation.)
Yes, I agree, a death sentence for CNN and the NYTimes could very well be in order. Certainly a microscopic investigation of the staff’s orifaces is not out of the question.
But the biggest problem (with the example I used) is the leaks. The government has to do something about this and prosecute the leakers of classified information as traitors. A couple of executions of congressmen, or a minimum life sentence, would end this practice pretty quickly.
I guess my main disagreement with you and TJ is that you want the press to do their job, even under the most difficult of circumstances, then you want to prosecute them for doing that job because they revealed the wrong information or too much information, or made a mistake.
The relative handful of situations where they deliberately printed national security information or where the “facts” were just plain wrong are still grounds for serious consequences; but they are few and far between. I would have no problem with congressional investigations and, even, a company death sentence if they were found to be grossly treasoneous or libelous.
I know you hate the analogies I use; here’s another one anyway
The media is actually quite a bit like the military. When allowed to do their job unencumbered there will be mistakes and set-backs; but they will get the job done and do it well in the end. We have all seen what happens when the military is hamstrung. Believe it or not, this is also true of the media. Many (not all) of the thing most people have a problem with in the media are due to not having access to the right information and generally bad intel. When this happens to the military it usually means more people than necessary die and the operation is totally FUBAR. When it happens to the media it doesn’t usually cost lives (though it can), but it is still FUBAR.Later,
Pauled
(Success is when preparation meets opportunity!)on 11/15 at 06:10 PM -
TO: Pauled
RE: ApologiesSorry I’ve not been able to pay much attention, here and at TCS. We’ve been up to our eye-balls.
Lots of people are coming forward and filing affidavits of allegations of wrong-doing with respect to the 2006 General Election here. And we find ourselves as the nexis for collecting those items, scanning, printing, storing and securing them.
We’re rather busy, as the time for certification of the election is coming on fast.
More on this later....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Chance favors the prepared mind.—Louis Pastuer, Father of Microbiology]on 11/18 at 04:42 PM -
Chuck,
I understand completely. For me this subject, media issues, is a complecated mess. I truely believe in the people right to know and freedom of the press to do that job. On the other hand, some of the things the big MSMs have done drive me crazy; as a reporter I probably would have gotten and submitted the story, as an editor/producer I never would have run it without authorization. There is a sense of fair play that, I believe, the media should try and adhere to.But, like all media hacks, my feathers get a bit ruffled when people start wanting to make laws to limit the media’s access and ability to do there job. It is already a difficult job, made more so by the idiots like CNN and the NYTImes as well as government officials who don’t think the press has a right to publish their wrong doings.
Then there is the problem with bias in the media and don’t even get me started on what the J-Schools are doing!!
Yeah, the media is a mess; but it is the MSMs who are starting to suffer for it and it is they who have to fix the problems.
on 11/19 at 11:59 AM -
TO: Pauled
RE: ComplicationsI understand completely.
THAT’s a good start.
For me this subject, media issues, is a complecated mess. I truely believe in the people right to know and freedom of the press to do that job.”—Pauled
Personally?
I think this matter transcends ‘media issues’.
Certainly, the so-called ‘major-media’ have a LOT to do with it. But I think they are nothing more, nor anything less, than the proverbial “useful fools”.
On the other hand, some of the things the big MSMs have done drive me crazy; as a reporter I probably would have gotten and submitted the story, as an editor/producer I never would have run it without authorization. There is a sense of fair play that, I believe, the media should try and adhere to.
As I think I stated on this thread....and certainly elsewhere....
There are two ways to excercise power:
[1] To make decisions for people who would be better off making such decisions for themselves.
[2] To withhold information from people that would help them make better decisions for themselves.
But, like all media hacks, my feathers get a bit ruffled when people start wanting to make laws to limit the media’s access and ability to do there job. It is already a difficult job, made more so by the idiots like CNN and the NYTImes as well as government officials who don’t think the press has a right to publish their wrong doings.
I think limiting the ability of the Fourth Estate to do their job is a heinous crime.
However, I think the biased approach the so-called major media has taken on as their approach to reporting information is even MORE abominable.
If they are not reporting the (1) whole truth and (2) nothing BUT the truth, they are just as bad as any other liar in society.
Then there is the problem with bias in the media and don’t even get me started on what the J-Schools are doing!!
Bias is not reporting the ‘whole truth’, e.g., BOTH sides of any issue. And that is the crime a accuse the so-called major media of perpetrating on US.
Yeah, the media is a mess; but it is the MSMs who are starting to suffer for it and it is they who have to fix the problems.
Maybe we need to tear it, as it exists today, down.
Their suffering doesn’t equate to what they are perpetrating.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Got kids?]on 11/19 at 01:16 PM -
Very nice rsponse to a difficult subject.
Pauled makes a strong case for an independent
media. I do not doubt its importance as
long as it doesn’t become the propoganda
arm of a special interest group or acts in
a fashion that would result in the average citizen being jailed.Unfortunately, what we see today is an reckless and
irresponsible media presenting extremely based and
slanted reporting as the news. In concrete terms,
we see it in the Richard Jewell case of a man’s reputation being
destroyed or the Duke rape case. I am not aware of one of the bill of rights that has not been severely restricted or impaired by the government often with the aid of the media. So to hear anyone acting as if the press freeedom
is an absolute beyond what protects are afforded to the
average citizen is beyond me. Especially after searching through the constitution.Thanks.
on 11/19 at 05:50 PM -
To Chuck and TJ,
Guess that’s it then. It is hard to defend anything the media does in light of the mess the MSMs have created. I believe in the press and its right to do its job. I believe that the reason for that right, and my belief, is the people’s right to know what the government is doing in the name of those people.Chuck, I said I could write a book on why “the whole truth” isn’t always printed. Let’s see if I can keep it in a couple of quick paragraphs.
One of the things the media is tasked with is breaking any story down into easy to read, understandable language. You do not print the entire state of the union speech. Almost everyone who didn’t watch it on TV probably doesn’t want to see it in pring or watch it replayed over and over again. When the media gives an overview of the most important points, with relavent quotes, they are doing their job.
When that is done well, the outcome is exactly what the public needs and wants.
But, sadly, it is often not done well. Quotes are taken out of context and reporters will then us that out-of-context quote to say something that was not said or even meant. This is how the media spins what someone says and twists the facts to fith their own bias. The other problem is in stories about issues. For example, doing a story on global warming, and quoting only one side of the debate or, worse yet, using labels and innuendos to make the other side look bad. Environmental reporters probably do this more than anyone and it is the biggest area where media bias is exposed.TJ, what exactly is your porblem with the Richard Jewell case or the Duke Rape Case, or any other cirme reporting? It is actually one area where the media does a pretty good job. They are quite careful here and always quote reliable government sources and, often, get the accused’s perspective (through their lawyers). Blame the cops, the lawyers and the system if you want, but this is not the media’s fault; blame for this lies squarely on the criminal justice system. Both prosecuters and defense lawyers love to use the media to their advantage. If you want to tone down the coverage, put a gag law on all lawyers.
I’m done defending the press. They screw up, there is bias, they sometimes have their own agenda. All of that is true. So I guess they are just a reckless lot and unnecessary and they should all be put out of business. The public would be much better off if there was no media in the country, so lets just make the press illegal and disband the whole lot. Viva U.S.S.R.; now there is a country to emulate!
on 11/20 at 09:21 AM -
Nice sharing, and great points. Learned many from it. Thanks
jim hjelm
jim hjelm occasions
jim hjelm wedding dressesjim hjelm on 09/25 at 06:19 AM -
I had got a dream to make my own company, nevertheless I didn’t have enough of money to do this. Thank heaven my friend recommended to take the personal loans. Hence I received the short term loan and made real my old dream.
StaffordSASHA27 on 09/11 at 03:36 AM -
That is really costless to have really hot facts referring to this topic. And very oft all people turn the personal computer and buy term papers and one will use the assistance of the professional web essays writing service to buy custom essay papers from.
MendezMalinda on 09/30 at 06:42 PM