Should the news media be patriotic? When a journalist uncovers a government secret, which comes first–national security or the public’s right to know?
In the United States, reporters consider themselves Americans first, journalists second. That means consulting the government before going public with a state secret. "When I was at ABC," James Bamford told Time in 2006, "we always checked with the Administration in power when we thought we had something of concern, and there was usually some way to work it out."
In a new book about the Bush Administration's efforts to expand the president's powers at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, the assumption that the press shouldn't publish security-sensitive stories is so hard-wired that New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau accepts it as a given. But it's a very American concept, and one that relies on the presumption that the U.S. government may make mistakes, but is largely a force for good. In other countries, the relationship between rulers and the press is strictly adversarial.
In Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice, Lichtblau unwittingly relates a depressing parable – his seeming obliviousness to conflict of interest is a bummer – describing the nation's most prominent newspaper's willingness to keep secrets for government officials, who turn out to be (shocker alert) lying. It's a cautionary tale about journalistic nationalism, one of many (Judith Miller, anyone?) in which the Times transformed itself into Bush's political slut.
A whore, at least, would have demanded money.
Read it here on Common Dreams, or scroll down on Ted Rall's blog. (I've never found a way to link to an individual post there.) Cartoon for May 24 is very good.
No comments:
Post a Comment