The Death of American Free Press

[Winstonm]

How many of us American citizens have been, like me, totally unaware that the CIA had a Publication Review Board?

 

How many know that at White House urging, this CIA Publication Review Board forced the New York Times to publish a censored (officially tagged redacted) piece?

 

Here is what happened: "The Times admit that the lost lines were “blacked out by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Publication Review Board after the White House intervened in the normal prepublication review process.”

 

This was an Op/Ed piece critical of Iran policies. Instead of me telling you more, I urge you to research this story - and after you do I suggest you get really angry. Without a free press there is no U.S.A. To claim "policy" as "sensitive" information is tantamount to creating a government-controlled Pravda news agency that only issues the information the White House wants us to hear. It is an outrage.

 

And it is frightening.

[sceptic]

though not related to the CIA, I actually think that press censorship is something to be proud of,

 

in england the main story of the day in certain popular press was that surrounding a typo made by the police, (this enable one of the usual junky sensationalist headlines that sells papers to the masses) it is sad that an australian newpaper media maganate can get a whole counttry reading drivel and junk 24 / 7, I think the press freedoms (and televison) are possibly the main instigator in the moral and social decline in our country (apart from the Labour party)

 

Dictatorships are looking more promising, at least you know where you stand with them, as you say Winstonm, do you really know who rules your country and what they are like?

[helene_t]

I certainly hope you're joking, Wayne.

[sceptic]

I never joke, I don't have a sense of humour :)

 

in fact reading what I have written, I am inclined to agree with myself

[rona_]

I never joke, I don't have a sense of humour :)

 

in fact reading what I have written, I am inclined to agree with myself

You can always emigrate to North Korea, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc. :)

[helene_t]

I never joke, I don't have a sense of humour :)

 

in fact reading what I have written, I am inclined to agree with myself

You can always emigrate to North Korea, Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc. :)

Or USA, apparently.

[Al_U_Card]

There is always the hope that the "Mother Ship" will come for us.....

[keylime]

Frankly, the NYT deserves strong sanctions for their reporting over the last year - it's been borderline traitorous.

[pclayton]

Well....

 

Levetrett (sp?) certainly has twickets to high-level classified information thats pretty fresh. One of the left blogs I looked mentioned that part of the article was a comprehensive 'bargain' with Iran. Was this classified?

 

Sorry, Freedom of the Press DOES NOT trump national security, no matter how ridiculous, pointless, dangerous - pick 3 - our mission in the middle east is.

[pbleighton]

"Sorry, Freedom of the Press DOES NOT trump national security, no matter how ridiculous, pointless, dangerous - pick 3 - our mission in the middle east is. "

 

This is certainly true. The issue is judgement. Just because the Government *can* classify something, it doesn't mean they *should*. Most classified information should never have been classified in the first place. It gets classified by reflex or to cover politcal butt (which appears to be the case here).

 

Peter

[pclayton]

"Sorry, Freedom of the Press DOES NOT trump national security, no matter how ridiculous, pointless, dangerous - pick 3 - our mission in the middle east is. "

 

This is certainly true. The issue is judgement. Just because the Government *can* classify something, it doesn't mean they *should*. Most classified information should never have been classified in the first place. It gets classified by reflex or to cover politcal butt (which appears to be the case here).

 

Peter

Well there's classified, and then there's CLASSIFIED.

 

Slippery slopes abound. DO we allow a politically motivated newspaper like the NYT to make the call of what should be classified and what shouldn't?

 

Or do we allow meddling into its definition by an inept administration?

[helene_t]

Frankly, the NYT deserves strong sanctions for their reporting over the last year - it's been borderline traitorous.

How can NYT be "traitorous"? Whom are they betraying? I suppose they never promized to be faithfull to anyone or anything. Maybe to some general standards of journalist ethics. But certainly not to the government.

[barmar]

How can NYT be "traitorous"? Whom are they betraying? I suppose they never promized to be faithfull to anyone or anything. Maybe to some general standards of journalist ethics. But certainly not to the government.

By forming a corporation under the laws of the US they have agreed to abide by those laws, and they include treason laws.

 

And even if they didn't incorporate, the paper is published by US citizens, who are bound by the laws of the country they live in.

[hrothgar]

Slippery slopes abound. DO we allow a politically motivated newspaper like the NYT to make the call of what should be classified and what shouldn't?

 

Or do we allow meddling into its definition by an inept administration?

Regretfully, I don't think that its possible to make an objective call on this one.

 

Personally, I trust the judgement of the New York Times a hell of a lot more than I do the US government. I feel that this held true back in the days of Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers. I think that it holds true now when the administration is trying to use "classification" to hide its deliberate torture of prisoners from congress and the public. I've always had a great appreciation for the fable of the "Sword of Damocles". I firmly believe that public officials need to live in fear of accountability. I beleive that a strong / free press is one on the most powerful tools for ensuring accountability. However, I doubt that statement does much to convince Dwanye, Dwayne, Jimmy, or the like.

 

Regardless, I want to see the press aggressively investigate the administration, even if it means releasing classified information. If the Times or any other paper choses to break the law, they should of course be subject to prosecution. The court system can decided whether or not the need to serve the public interest was sufficient grounds to justify disclosing this information and chose an appropriate remedy.

[Al_U_Card]

"You don't know what you've got, 'til its gone." Joni Mitchell

 

"You gave up your rights, when they invaded Iraq." me

 

where's my acoustic guitar when I need it... B)

[helene_t]

How can NYT be "traitorous"? Whom are they betraying? I suppose they never promized to be faithfull to anyone or anything. Maybe to some general standards of journalist ethics. But certainly not to the government.

By forming a corporation under the laws of the US they have agreed to abide by those laws, and they include treason laws.

 

And even if they didn't incorporate, the paper is published by US citizens, who are bound by the laws of the country they live in.

Sure, they are bound by the law, but the U.S. legal definition of treason is very narrow.

[mike777]

I assume a foreign corporation or citizen can publish a newspaper in the usa or buy the NYT controlling voting shares out? Why are we assuming USA citizens own papers printed here? I assume just as in Sweden where the oldest newspaper in the history of the world (1600's) has gone digitial that can happen in other countries? How do you control a digitial newspaper?

 

Just asking.

[hrothgar]

How can NYT be "traitorous"? Whom are they betraying? I suppose they never promized to be faithfull to anyone or anything. Maybe to some general standards of journalist ethics. But certainly not to the government.

By forming a corporation under the laws of the US they have agreed to abide by those laws, and they include treason laws.

 

And even if they didn't incorporate, the paper is published by US citizens, who are bound by the laws of the country they live in.

The Nuremberg trials dealt with grand issues like genocide and crimes against humanity. Even so, it might be worth quoting from those evtns:

 

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

 

Many legal system recognize that individuals have a right - in some cases an obligation - to disobey unjust laws. "Befehl ist Befehl" wasn't a recognized defense.

 

Many people, myself included, believe that the US government is currently commiting war crimes. The government shouldn't be able to classify data in order to avoid appropriate oversight. In an ideal world, the legislative branch would apply appropriate checks and balances on the executive. However, Bush had a blank check for the last six years.

 

I'm glad that the 4th estate stepped up to bat.

[luke warm]

as richard says, this comes down to trust... i'd guess that liberals would trust the nyt more than the gov't, and vice versa for conservatives... not always, but usually...

 

as for who should do the classifying, it certainly can't be newspapers... they'd classify nothing... when reporters go with our troops into battle, they have to be told not to report certain things...

[Winstonm]

A few comments:

 

First this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Freedom of the press is a basic constitutional right that cannot be impinged upon without destruction of the republic. How can the CIA, then, a branch of the executive, even have a Publication Review Board that can be allowed to redact a word?!

 

The issue is if someone leaks truly classified information - like the launch code on our ICBMs - and the NYT times publishes it they are protected by the constitution. The government's grievance can only be with the author - and that individual could be held account for a treasonous act.

 

However, in this NYTs article, the (IMO illegal) CIA Review Board had already read and approved of the piece - it was White House interference that led the CIA to force the redactions. First of all, the NYT has a constitutional right to freedom of the press, therefore neither the executive or its branches should be allowed to censor a word.

 

If the White House had the ability to classify information and then use the CIA to kill news, would we ever have known about Watergate or the Gulf of Tonkin or a myriad of illegal acts of the government?

 

Without a complete and totally free press, we may as well just bow and change the presidential title to King.

[Winstonm]

There is always the hope that the "Mother Ship" will come for us.....

It already came - it was in the tail of that comet a few years back and I heard people were just dying to get on board.

[Winstonm]

Frankly, the NYT deserves strong sanctions for their reporting over the last year - it's been borderline traitorous.

Could you please elaborate on this? How can a newspaper, which happens to have a constitutional right to be free of government intervention, be traitorous?

 

Was reporting the Watergate break-in traitorous?

Was publishing Daniel Ellsberg's leak that proved the Gulf of Tonkin a lie traitorous?

How can an Op/Ed (Opinon/Editorial) piece - which was the issue with the NYT - ever be considered traitorous - is it just because it differs with "official" opinion?

 

Dwayne, I like you but occassionally you say things that just knock me to the floor, and this is one of those times.

 

The founders of this country understood all too well that allowing one opinion to rule the country, whether that opinion was from a single person or from a group, was the road to ruin - to dictatorial powers. The framework of the constitution was deliberately designed to have a rather ineffective government - there is no doubt dictatorial governments are more effecient - and also to have government oversight via a free and unfettered press.

 

What is truly traitorous is any assault on the concept of free speech or a free press, because what you in essence are assaulting is freedon of thought.

[mike777]

Freedom of speech is not unlimited, freedom of the press is not unlimited in the USA.

 

Of course fighting for what those limits are or are not defines us a nation. B)

 

 

I just wish we would assemble in protest against the limits, the other choice is to allow a few unelected judges to decide and have nothing ever settled.

 

 

The fact that parts, many parts of Mcain Feingold were found constitutional....I still find frightening but perhaps that is another subject for another time.

 

I do find the argument that civil rights must be decided by a few unelected judges and not the electorate to be interesting as where the dividing line/debate on what is or not is the best definition of a "civil right" is interesting.

[Winstonm]

Freedom  of speech is not unlimited, freedom of the press is not unlimited in the USA.

 

Of course fighting for what those limits are or are not defines us a nation.  B)

 

 

I just wish we would assemble in protest against the limits, the other choice is to allow a few unelected judges to decide and have nothing ever settled.

 

 

The fact that parts, many parts of Mcain Feingold were found constitutional....I still find frightening but perhaps that is another subject for another time.

 

I do find the argument that civil rights must be decided by a few unelected judges and not the electorate to be interesting as where the dividing line/debate on what is or not is the best definition of a "civil right" is interesting.

Good views and intelligent commentary, Mike. I happen to believe that the current administration (not just Bush) is behaving in the manner of which the founding fathers of the republic so feared - an attempt to consolidate power into a single branch of government.

 

This attempt was allowed by the same-party Congress and then for the most part legalized by a right-appointed judiciary.

 

As for me, I would prefer going too far in allowing freedom of the press rather than in allowing too little. Someone much wiser than me once said:

 

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson

 

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson

 

A final comment: I have heard and read from many that the U.S. Constitution is outdated, that those were different times and the fear of government was fresh, but now we are too wise to allow the same things to happen....

 

I am reminded of what Jesse Livermore, considered by many the greatest stock trader ever, said in his later years: "I am convinced that nothing ever changes in the market, because the market is made up of people and people do not change."

 

The U.S. Constitution was written to guard against human nature, and human nature does not change.

[mike777]

Forever they have done polls on parts of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and how many are in favor of small parts of it.

 

This polls rarely get more than a third in favor of these subversive ideas.

 

Suprised to not hear more from you on McCain/Feingold, talk about abetting free speech or not being allowed to petition the government. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court allowed large parts of this to go forward. Shame on them.

 

Livermore's book is of course a classic.