Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The NY Times: trust us, we know what's best for this country
Today’s online piece by Howard Kurtz assesses the various reactions to the recent NY Times banking record story. He includes passages from a Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report . (Bill Keller is the executive editor of the Times) True to the Times’ recent tendency to sheer vapidness, Mr. Keller does not disappoint.
First, there is the usual treacle about the majesty of a free press:
“It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press….They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”
Way to highlight an argument that nobody is making. Does anybody really believe that some nimrod at the Constitutional Convention actually stood before his fellow delegates and said:
“Here’s an idea, why don’t we just establish that it is always wise and patriotic to take the President at his word and the press should clear all publishing decisions with the government”
All the Constitution says is that “Congress shall pass no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” In other words, our founders didn’t “give” freedom to the press; they recognized such freedom as an inherent right and merely inserted a constitutional guarantee that Congress would respect it.
(And we should take special note of the “freedom of speech” portion of that amendment…because the Times doesn’t. It has long championed significant restrictions on certain speech – codified in McCain-Feingold – that allows the NY Times to bash conservatives 24/7/365 but otherwise limits the rest of us with restrictions on money and speech timing. You Call This Reform? )
He continues:
“The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor. “
What a pompous….! The NY Times is a business – that’s it. They were given no “power”; the freedoms they enjoy are ostensibly the same as those of any community newspaper of only 1,000 circulation or even this blog (which would kill for a ‘circulation’ of a 1,000 hits). And forgive me for dismissing his claim that national security decisions “are among the most agonizing decisions [he’s] faced as an editor.” I have no doubt that any ‘agony’ he’s experienced, ceased once he was convinced that a particular story would embarrass or reflect badly on this administration.
Somewhere within the federal government, someone entrusted with classified information is illegally disclosing that information to non-authorized persons. That is a story, one that is worthy of publication. We will not read about it, though, because the NY Times, the Washington Post et al have decided that their access to that information is more important than our access to information about corrupt officials in the government. Fair enough but that’s a business decision and one that is deserving of no special protection.
And somewhere within the confines of the NY Times is an unauthorized receiver of classified information. I have yet to read or hear an adequate, intellectually consistent argument for just why being employed by the NY Times should give you a grant of immunity for an act that would subject others to significant criminal liability.
The NY Times is unabashedly anti-Bush and anti-our efforts in Iraq. Their decision to publish this information is consistent with this …which makes his conclusion simply laughable:
“But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.”
I don’t think they made the decision ‘casually’ – I think they made it gleefully, daydreaming that maybe, just maybe, this could be the news item that breaks this administration. Oh well, back to the drawing board for the Times.
First, there is the usual treacle about the majesty of a free press:
“It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press….They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”
Way to highlight an argument that nobody is making. Does anybody really believe that some nimrod at the Constitutional Convention actually stood before his fellow delegates and said:
“Here’s an idea, why don’t we just establish that it is always wise and patriotic to take the President at his word and the press should clear all publishing decisions with the government”
All the Constitution says is that “Congress shall pass no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” In other words, our founders didn’t “give” freedom to the press; they recognized such freedom as an inherent right and merely inserted a constitutional guarantee that Congress would respect it.
(And we should take special note of the “freedom of speech” portion of that amendment…because the Times doesn’t. It has long championed significant restrictions on certain speech – codified in McCain-Feingold – that allows the NY Times to bash conservatives 24/7/365 but otherwise limits the rest of us with restrictions on money and speech timing. You Call This Reform? )
He continues:
“The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor. “
What a pompous….! The NY Times is a business – that’s it. They were given no “power”; the freedoms they enjoy are ostensibly the same as those of any community newspaper of only 1,000 circulation or even this blog (which would kill for a ‘circulation’ of a 1,000 hits). And forgive me for dismissing his claim that national security decisions “are among the most agonizing decisions [he’s] faced as an editor.” I have no doubt that any ‘agony’ he’s experienced, ceased once he was convinced that a particular story would embarrass or reflect badly on this administration.
Somewhere within the federal government, someone entrusted with classified information is illegally disclosing that information to non-authorized persons. That is a story, one that is worthy of publication. We will not read about it, though, because the NY Times, the Washington Post et al have decided that their access to that information is more important than our access to information about corrupt officials in the government. Fair enough but that’s a business decision and one that is deserving of no special protection.
And somewhere within the confines of the NY Times is an unauthorized receiver of classified information. I have yet to read or hear an adequate, intellectually consistent argument for just why being employed by the NY Times should give you a grant of immunity for an act that would subject others to significant criminal liability.
The NY Times is unabashedly anti-Bush and anti-our efforts in Iraq. Their decision to publish this information is consistent with this …which makes his conclusion simply laughable:
“But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with any animus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing the issues.”
I don’t think they made the decision ‘casually’ – I think they made it gleefully, daydreaming that maybe, just maybe, this could be the news item that breaks this administration. Oh well, back to the drawing board for the Times.
