Secrets, Secrets

The editors of the New York and LA Times publish a joint editorial on how they decide to publish government secrets. (Gee, think they're feeling some heat on this one?)

It may be interesting to you to know that, when it comes to how people think through these things, what kinds of analytics they apply, the editor of the LA Times, while working, of course, at a completely different paper, with a different newsroom with a different perspective, attitude, vibe -- is himself a product of the New York Times.

In any event I very much like what Ann Althouse had to say about the piece: they keep pointing to the fact that the government's default position is to promote its successes and hide its embarrassing failures. But these programs were working. And the press, insofar as these gentlemen represent its thinking, its very mode of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate being, assume always that the government has a credibility gap.

They do not seem to recognize how much of a credibility gap they now have.

This is part of why the criticism of the Times (New York variant) is so often tightly linked to partisan complaints and tactics, I believe.

So long as that's the case they can continue to deny that they, like the government, have an actual issue in terms of lost trust with real people.

It's just those ideologues, you see.

The two things they seem not to realize are these: first, it simply is not the case that all of us who are critical of the choices and decisions made by the press are doing so from a partisan position. And second, say that's true, say it's only the case that Republicans and conservatives no longer trust the mainstream press.

My God, that's half the electorate. Are they really prepared to simply write off half the American people, shrug, say oh well, those people only trust Fox and they deserve what they get, easy come, easy go?

Because that seems to me to be the upshot, the trajectory, of those claims and arguments. Conservatives don't trust us, what do you want us to do about it? (Because surely it isn't our fault.)

Comments

[Media Hound]

In response to criticism of the NY Times' publication of classified national security secrets, the NY Times on Friday decided to publish the location (including color photos) of the vacation homes owned by Rumsfeld and Cheney, along with pointing out hidden security measures for the properties.

Further still, they try to smear Rumsfeld as a racist.

Here's the junk journalism in question:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html

[JB (not John Bolton)]

You can complain all you want about what The New York Times did. There are only two ways of looking at this.

The first way is to trust the government and accept their position as fundamentally correct and balanced and in everyone's best interests.

The second way is to look at the decisions made by the Founders of the United States. They explicitly granted freedom to the press so that the people could be informed and to keep the government in check.

History is rife with examples of governments amassing power and using that power to intimidate the Press.

The uproar is particularly ludicrous in this specific case because a) many newspapers published the same information but only The New York Times seems to deserve criticism; and b) the information in the article could be found in many places elsewhere, including George W. Bush's published remarks.

If you want to trust the government in all things, that's your prerogative. It's my prerogative *NOT* to trust it.

[Media Hound]

JB, it's not up to the NY Times to decide which classified
national security programs should remain secret, and which
should be broadcast to the world.

See: US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.

As for the other papers, they were in the loop on the imminent
publication via the NY Times.

But I have no problem punishing EVERY paper who publishes
classified national security secrets.

[dauber]

That's a pretty interesting either/or you've got going there JB. But the fact is that the New York Times does not represent the founders, and we tend to take things case-by-case, most of us. Not believing they should have published in THIS case is not the same as thinking they should NEVER publish. You're swallowing their line somewhat uncritically, don't you think? In any event, the argument about why the Times is getting the bulk of the heat is answered in an earlier post: basically the other papers just didnt have the story -- and hadn't decided to publish as a result -- until the NYT went. That's a substantive, not political, reason they're the one most people are most riled at.

[BB-Idaho]

RE: Media Hound's reference to Article III, Section 3 makes one wonder
about a recent edition of the CNN "Cafferty File": He reads e-mails from viewers. Concerning the subject of 'mining' financial transactions, a Kansas woman wrote to the effect that she actually hoped the government would review HER personal bank record so they would learn how a budget SHOULD be balanced. Since only the 'aid and comfort' clause is apparently applicable in the Times situation, could the ironic woman be persecuted? Could I be persecuted for laughting?

[barry brown]

I remember when I was a little boy, my mom would always tell me that the kkk would march at the state capital every year. She said that they would always wear white robes covering there faces to protect their identity.Mother said they promise to be in every top spot in government, state, and city. They succeeded here in Kansas! Blacks are blind sided by being told falsified lies, that is what the kkk is best at doing.