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.]

Less...