In case you haven't been following; the New York Times (and other papers) decided to out a federal program that traced the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. They were asked not to run the story; yet they did anyway.
Here's the transcript, but if you want to see one pissed off President, and rightly so, go here.
Q Sir, several news organizations have reported about a program that allows the administration to look into the bank records of certain suspected terrorists. My questions are twofold: One, why have you not gone to Congress to ask for authorization for this program, five years after it started? And two, with respect, if neither the courts, nor the legislature is allowed to know about these programs, how can you feel confident the checks and balances system works?
THE PRESIDENT: Congress was briefed. And what we did was fully authorized under the law. And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. What we were doing was the right thing. Congress was aware of it, and we were within the law to do so.
The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and, at the same time, make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.
You'll want to give yourself a quick primer on the 1st Ammendment here. Make sure you read on to Schenck v. US 1919 and Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969. If we're a nation of laws and we respect those laws, I don't see any way the NYT reporter, Eric Lichtblau and his editor can escape prosecution.
Evidenlty, this reporter has a habit of this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10775-2004Jun27.html
He even got a Pulitzer for it...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/pulitzer.lichtblau.dea.html
I suppose that means what he did was right?
He explains himself...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1654525/posts
"They were similar in terms of the objections raised not to publish," Lichtblau told E&P today. "That the bad guys knew we were listening to them, but they don't know exactly how." But he said the objections "did not rise to as high a level as last time."
Dude, the HOW is that they are reading your fucking paper! So I guess, that since they didn't scream from the top of mount olympus that you shouldn't publish the story, that was tacit admission that you should? What kind of twisted logic is that?
UPDATE:
I've heard some talk that prior judicial opinion insulates the Times from prosecution on this. See the link here. Regarding New York Times v US (1971), even Wiki points that it may not fully insulate the Times in this case if the govt wants to press the case.
This is all covered under the Patriot act...
I am with you on this one. This info should not have been disclosed the way it was.
On the other hand when I originally read through some of the patriot act [ a few years ago ] sections on Banking I was suprised....Most people didnt read it that close.
Also they problably missed out on all of the bank 21 stuff that recently came out as well.
The reason we are talking about this is two fold.
1. There is no trust in the media at large left for the Bush administration so everyone in the media is truly trying to protect us.
2. The media players in general dont have a lot of real experence at investigative journalism. This for me is illustrated on the local level like a week tv or pantagraph, the regional level like a wgn or superstation TBS or the national level like a cbs or FOX.
In my oppinion most of these outlets have gotten away from real news and investigative journalism. Some times they just havent been trained or have the common sence to know what they are doing. Especially dangerous during a time of war.
I know I said two reasons but when I was typing I came up with a third. There is a great deal of misinformation and reliance on media pools so I think that a lot of reporters take the easy way out and the easy story. Lots of stock stories and media footage prevail.
Posted by: crutch at June 26, 2006 08:44 PMI agree with you except for one thing:
1. There is no trust in the media at large left for the Bush administration so everyone in the media is truly trying to protect us.
I don't believe it's that they're trying to protect us; but it's more that they're trying to smear the administration. I don't suppose there has ever been "trust" between the so called fifth column and any administration; it should always be adversarial, yet this time around they're putting profit above the good of the country.
I think Ted Turner's gift of the 24 hour news cycle is the root of the problem here. 20 years ago, before CNN; you got your news in the morning paper and evening news; there was just enough news in the world to fill both mediums. Now, with news channels; all the major 3 letter networks, etc all needing to fill time on a 24 hour cycle; they just slap everything they can up on the wall and see what sticks otherwise they're stuck with a test pattern for 20 hours out of the day.
Hell, even fox does it; EVERYTHING that goes on is a "Fox News Alert!" with ominous music and it ends up being a story about a dog crapping somewhere. There's just no more news today than there ever was but a whole lot more "reporting".
I do really think the MSM and the Times specifically have it out for non liberal viewpoints. They got caught bigtime on this one and are trying to backpedal by saying it's in the public interest. Boobs are in the public interest, aliens at Area 51 are in the public interest; how we give our guys that kill terrorists for a living their information is NOT in the public interest.
The reliance on media pools taints the coverage from Iraq as well. All the reporters sit in the green zone and report only on what they can see from their balconies. How anyone can construe that as the whole story is beyond comprehension, but it probably has a lot to do with your point about lack of investigative journalism as much as it has to do with the 24 hour news cycle.
Posted by: nose at June 27, 2006 09:17 AM