cromagnum Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/snow-nyt/ What do Y'all think about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Ya know... both sides of this argument are messed up. I tend to think the adminstation is reacting to an irrisponsible media, but really its the chicken and the egg connundrum. The press has the right (the freedom if you will) to interrogate and publish what it sees fit. However, they SHOULD (but are not obligated to), protect information which, if released, would be detrimental to the United States. Example: Lets say the government has good, solid intellegence that 3 terrorists plan a meeting at a hotel in Chicago. The FBI plans on waiting until they are in the hotel and then conducting a raid. The press gets ahold of this story (another issue entirely). And then they report it on the front page of the news. Now the terrorists decide not to meet, and the next week they blow up the sears tower. This is a fictional case, sure, but clearly the media is in possession of classified material. Is it illegal to report the story? Thats a legal argument. They certainally have freedom of the press, but I work for the Federal Government. If I disclose information, I go to jail. Freedom of speech doesnt cover me there. Freedom of the press shouldnt give them immunity either. And what about the Sears Tower? In the fictional scenerio above, should the Publisher be held liable? What if you personally went up to one of the terrorists and said "hey, they feds know you are going to be here on thursday". Would you expect to be detained? I think the answer is obvious. Another question entirely is who is leaking this information. What motive do they have to leak the information. Is information being strategically leaked out for tactical reasons (or are they politically motivated). Crimes are being committed and the press refuses to act responsibly, causing the administration to fall back into a cacoon and disclose little. Then when the press gets a little bit of information they go crazy over it in, what often appears to be, a blatent attempt at revenge against a secrative administration they helped create. The solution: Prosecute the leakers. Disclose infomation only to organizations that behave responsibly. Prosecute to the extent possible, unethical news organizations. Elect new leaders, elect new congressmen, stop buying newspapers, stop watching CNN....Nextel. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If members of the administration weren't responsible for blowing a CIA agent's cover out of nothing but spite, their anger might have more credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/snow-nyt/ What do Y'all think about this? 714327[/snapback] When all else fails, blame the media... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 One thing you cannot forget. Whether it is right or wrong, the President has the authority to declassify information. Once information is declassified, it is free reign. This, of course, is where it starts to get muddy. Was it really "leaked"? Was it authrized to be"leaked" (a.k.a. declassified)? So again, 2 issues here. 1) Who is leaking the information, was it authorized? and 2) Why is the press allowed to report information known to be classified. If you take the president for his word, and I think you have to, then he is doing everything he can to keep america safe. Things are classified for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 One thing you cannot forget. Whether it is right or wrong, the President has the authority to declassify information. Once information is declassified, it is free reign. This, of course, is where it starts to get muddy. Was it really "leaked"? Was it authrized to be"leaked" (a.k.a. declassified)? So again, 2 issues here. 1) Who is leaking the information, was it authorized? and 2) Why is the press allowed to report information known to be classified. If you take the president for his word, and I think you have to, then he is doing everything he can to keep america safe. Things are classified for a reason. 714485[/snapback] Why do you think we have to? His word isn't exactly solid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/snow-nyt/ What do Y'all think about this? 714327[/snapback] I think I have no problem with any administration confronting a free press. It's when they stop being confrontational and start silencing the free press that I'll start worrying. I also think that the press has to start realizing that not everything is meant for public consumption. Some things, if you report them, endanger the country. Some, if you report them, get people killed. The press generally seems to think that "free press" equates to "completely irresponsible press" (some more so than others - Geraldo as an embed in OIF springs immediately to mind as an example of gross irresponsibility; Rick Atkinson an example of the opposite). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 I think I have no problem with any administration confronting a free press. It's when they stop being confrontational and start silencing the free press that I'll start worrying. I also think that the press has to start realizing that not everything is meant for public consumption. Some things, if you report them, endanger the country. Some, if you report them, get people killed. The press generally seems to think that "free press" equates to "completely irresponsible press" (some more so than others - Geraldo as an embed in OIF springs immediately to mind as an example of gross irresponsibility; Rick Atkinson an example of the opposite). 714511[/snapback] I agree that the press should not reveal all aspects's of counterterrorism, and the W.H. has the right to confront the press on this issue. My belief on this issue, the source of this leak needs to be revealed. At the same time this administration has not had a good relationship with the press, right or wrong.. And the press went on a counter offensive and sometimes stupidly so, this issue is one of em. But over the last five years with programs that take away liberties, it's about time that the state I live in, change it's motto '' live free or die'' to live somewhat free or die. Or as janice would say, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Oh for crying out loud, investigative agencies monitor bank transactions for money laundering and all sorts of stuff. It's not like the administration is forging new ground. And given its track record this crowd is probably wasting taxpayer dollars monitoring my Aunt Tillie while OBL uses online banking to pay for that dialysis machine. I can't believe that's even considered "news". Whoop de do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If you take the president for his word, and I think you have to, then he is doing everything he can to keep america safe. 714485[/snapback] As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. His word is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. His word is worthless. 714545[/snapback] Ya know, I'm not even going to touch this. If you cant be mature enough to get beyond "Bush = Bad" and have an intellegent comment on the merits of the discussion, I am sorry for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 As the saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. His word is worthless. 714545[/snapback] Thats not Bush's. His is "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, well, well, you aint gonna fool me twice." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 The Times cares more about it's liberal agenda than the lives and well being of Americans. It is an act of treason to leak this classified information and the person who leaked should face the death penalty...no matter what party they belong to. It is unfortunate that the likely victims of the next terrorist attack will be good Americans and not the staff of the Times. It would be great irony if the Times building was blown up by a terrorist that was being tracked by phone or bank records until the Times articles tipped them off. The again why would they bomb their allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 I think I have no problem with any administration confronting a free press. It's when they stop being confrontational and start silencing the free press that I'll start worrying. I also think that the press has to start realizing that not everything is meant for public consumption. Some things, if you report them, endanger the country. Some, if you report them, get people killed. The press generally seems to think that "free press" equates to "completely irresponsible press" (some more so than others - Geraldo as an embed in OIF springs immediately to mind as an example of gross irresponsibility; Rick Atkinson an example of the opposite). 714511[/snapback] You mean we shouldn't be proud of the NYT for leaking classified information about how the US is legally fighting Al Qaeda? Gosh, and here I thought helping terrorists would be worth it if it meant another Pulitzer. Oh, yeah, Bush Bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If members of the administration weren't responsible for blowing a CIA agent's cover out of nothing but spite, their anger might have more credibility. 714475[/snapback] Uh huh. I'm sure Valerie Plame's secret identity was solid as long as she was getting her husband jobs he wasn't qualified to do so that he could write op-eds in the NYT that contradicted his own findings. I'm sure no one would have thought to look into how Joe Wilson got his jobs in Africa once it was clear he was lying. But, yeah, it's all Bush's fault she got found out. None of which explains why the NYT decided to throw AQ a bone a couple days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Hmm, so the NYT reports something that was public knowledge already, and they are the evil ones here? I truly don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 The Times cares more about it's liberal agenda than the lives and well being of Americans. It is an act of treason to leak this classified information and the person who leaked should face the death penalty...no matter what party they belong to. It is unfortunate that the likely victims of the next terrorist attack will be good Americans and not the staff of the Times. It would be great irony if the Times building was blown up by a terrorist that was being tracked by phone or bank records until the Times articles tipped them off. The again why would they bomb their allies. 714651[/snapback] Too bad Bush neglected to mention the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post (best buddy of the Bush admin) also ran the story. But hey, singling out the Times fits his agenda, and yours apparently, so slam away. Times Bad. Bush Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Washington Post (best buddy of the Bush admin) 714769[/snapback] You have GOT to be kidding. Have you ever read the Post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Hmm, so the NYT reports something that was public knowledge already, and they are the evil ones here? I truly don't get it. 714683[/snapback] And they sat on the story for several months during negotiations with the administration, much like they did before breaking the warrantless wiretap story (which they sat on for a year). The story shouldn't be that the NYT let it be known that the US was monitoring international financial transactions (why is this even a surprise...in other news the sky is blue), it should be that the administration is doing it without any oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Too bad Bush neglected to mention the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post (best buddy of the Bush admin) also ran the story. But hey, singling out the Times fits his agenda, and yours apparently, so slam away. Times Bad. Bush Good. 714769[/snapback] Damn right it fits my agenda to slam a paper that consistently endangers Americans by printing stories detailing U.S. efforts to stop terrorism. I'm sure those other papers are garbage too. Most media has hit rock bottom. By the way, Republicans and Democrats both knew about this program and approved it. This should not be a partisan issue, all Americans should support legal efforts to stop our enemies from attacking us. But hey, if you would rather turn the Times into a victim of the mean Bush Administration, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts