RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=10252
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
0.102 Powered by Wordpress
It is a CIA program. It’s not fair to all the foreign operations officers.
Comment by Pesaz — Thursday, June 29, 2024 @ 8:07 am
I’m a bit less inclined to give the NYT a pass on this one. In previous cases (NSA warrantless wiretapping, Abu Ghraib) there was clear illegality involved. In this case, that doesn’t seem so clear. So, if I were Keller, I probably would have deferred to “national security” and chosen not to publish.
That having been said, the anti-First Amendment right-wing crowd blew their credibility with me a long time ago. I don’t doubt for a minute that had this report appeared first in the WSJ (as it nearly did) the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the far right would be non-existent.
Comment by LaurenceB — Thursday, June 29, 2024 @ 8:19 am
Submitted in a strictly non-partisan and objective spirit:
The Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times.
Discuss.
Comment by KipEsquire — Thursday, June 29, 2024 @ 9:24 am
A legitiamte observation, it ultimately doesn’t undercut the actual facts reported in the piece.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, June 29, 2024 @ 10:09 am
I hate to be a harpie and quibble … no I don’t.
The fact that the material was available from public sources is legally relevant, but doesn’t mean the story should have been published (because lots of publicly available information is nearly universally unknown - I often am sent to find it) anyhow, whether by the Wall Street Journal or the Grey Lady and it’s minions. Peggy Noonan “agrees http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008579″>, and puts it better than that as follows:
I think it’s personal drama in part because there’s no common sense in it. Common sense tells you that when the actual physical safety of Americans is threatened by extremists who’ve declared a holy war, and when those extremists have, or can get, terrible weapons that can kill thousands or tens of thousands or more, and when the American government is trying to keep them from doing what they’d like to do, which, again, is kill–then you’d think twice, thrice, 10 times before you tell the world exactly how the government is trying, in its own bumbling way, which is how governments do things, to keep innocent people safe and bad guys on the run.
It is kind of crazy that the Times would do two stories that expose, and presumably hinder, the government’s efforts. But then it strikes me as crazy that every paper that has reported the latest story–that would include The Wall Street Journal–would do so. Based on the evidence that has become public so far, the Journal, like the Times, and the Los Angeles Times, seems to me to have made the wrong call. But to me it is the New York Times, of all papers involved, that has most forgotten the mission. The mission is to get the story, break through the forest to get to a clear space called news, and also be a citizen. It’s not to be a certain kind of citizen, and insist everyone else be that kind of citizen, and also now and then break a story.
Comment by Honza Prchal — Thursday, June 29, 2024 @ 2:31 pm
The Wall Street Journal insists that, unlike The New York Times, it has some standards. “Not Everything Is Fit To Print”
A number of folks, the New York Times and Dr. Steven Taylor in How Secret Was The Secret among them, have pointed an exculpatory finger at the declassified documents and at the Wall Street Journal in order to defend the Grey Lady’s privacy fetis…
Trackback by Pros and Cons — Friday, June 30, 2024 @ 2:38 pm