And Sometimes They Actually Get It Right
Amid regime calls for the arrests of reporters, editors, and publishers for treason, two executive editors of major US newspapers have spoken out. The op-ed piece by Dean Baquet, editor, The Los Angeles Times, and Bill Keller, executive editor, The New York Times in today's NY Times is a response to the shrill denunciations by the Emperor and his minions in the administration and in Congress. It is also a response to the scathing editorial about the issue of publishing stories about the secret spying on international financial transactions that was printed yesterday in the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ also published an article on that issue, but claims the government did not request it hold the story. Whatever.
Mr. Baquet and Mr. Keller attempt to explain just what goes into the decision on whether to hold or to print such articles. Their explanation includes the historical role the press has paid and the Constitutional underpinnings of that role. It also describes the rather cynical use of the press by the government, especially this one.
Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat. [Emphasis added]
While this is not a particularly startling revelation, at least these two editors are willing to admit it in print. The problem is that both papers were perfectly happy to cooperate with the government along these lines. Both printed what is now known to be false information in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The NY Times even went to the mat in support of Judith Miller's refusal to name her administration source in the Valerie Plame matter. Both of these papers and the other major print media (such as the Washington Post and the afore mentioned Wall Street Journal) have carried water for the Bush regime for over five years.
Perhaps the regime's response this time will convince these stalwart First Amendment editors that the administration is not their friend, nor the friend of the American public. Perhaps now they will do the job they have so eloquently described in this op-ed piece.
We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.
We shall see.
Mr. Baquet and Mr. Keller attempt to explain just what goes into the decision on whether to hold or to print such articles. Their explanation includes the historical role the press has paid and the Constitutional underpinnings of that role. It also describes the rather cynical use of the press by the government, especially this one.
Government officials, understandably, want it both ways. They want us to protect their secrets, and they want us to trumpet their successes. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he was scandalized by our decision to report on the bank-monitoring program. But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department's efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary's team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat. [Emphasis added]
While this is not a particularly startling revelation, at least these two editors are willing to admit it in print. The problem is that both papers were perfectly happy to cooperate with the government along these lines. Both printed what is now known to be false information in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The NY Times even went to the mat in support of Judith Miller's refusal to name her administration source in the Valerie Plame matter. Both of these papers and the other major print media (such as the Washington Post and the afore mentioned Wall Street Journal) have carried water for the Bush regime for over five years.
Perhaps the regime's response this time will convince these stalwart First Amendment editors that the administration is not their friend, nor the friend of the American public. Perhaps now they will do the job they have so eloquently described in this op-ed piece.
We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.
We shall see.
posted by Diane at 4:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home