Today, the editors of the New York Times and Los Angeles Times jointly published a statement on their publication on and exposure of the SWIFT monitoring program.
It’s available both on the NY Times’ and LA Times’ sites. Go read it, and come back when you’re done.
The statement makes three basic points, I think.
First, as editors they think really hard about publishing classified information, and they give the government the opportunity to talk them out of it.
Then, we listen. No article on a classified program gets published until the responsible officials have been given a fair opportunity to comment. And if they want to argue that publication represents a danger to national security, we put things on hold and give them a respectful hearing. Often, we agree to participate in off-the-record conversations with officials so they can make their case without fear of spilling more secrets onto our front pages.
Finally, we weigh the merits of publishing against the risks of publishing. There is no magic formula, no neat metric for either the public’s interest or the dangers of publishing sensitive information. We make our best judgment.
Second, that they have a stake in the fight against terrorism as well, because they live in the cities attacked, because their reporters are at risk in the war zones, and because the freedom the terrorists want to destroy is what offers them (the free press) room to operate.
Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in the country’s security. We live and work in cities that have been tragically marked as terrorist targets. Reporters and photographers from both of our papers braved the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center to convey the horror to the world. We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism.
But the virulent hatred espoused by terrorists, judging by their literature, is directed not just against our people and our buildings. It is also aimed at our values, at our freedoms and at our faith in the self-government of an informed electorate. If freedom of the press makes some Americans uneasy, it is anathema to the ideologists of terror.
Third, they point out that the government always wants to keep secrets, and that they are the bulwark against the government abusing those powers.
Thirty-five years ago Friday, in the Supreme Court ruling that stopped the government from suppressing the secret Vietnam War history called the Pentagon Papers, Justice Hugo Black wrote: “The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people.”
As that sliver of judicial history reminds us, the conflict between the government’s passion for secrecy and the press’ drive to reveal is not of recent origin. This did not begin with the Bush administration, although the polarization of the electorate and the daunting challenge of terrorism have made the tension between press and government as clamorous as at any time since Justice Black wrote.
Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price.
These are all honorable arguments, made by honorable men. But there is, in my mind, a gaping hole in them, and the absence signified by that hole is truly significant.
And yes, I do think that the free press can and must serve as a check on governmental power.
And yes, they’re not neutral in the struggle against terrorism, but if they saw themselves first and foremost as citizens – as Ernie Pyle did in his war reporting, as Joe Galloway did in his – would the question even come up?
Let me restate one of their central points in terms I wish they had used. (Changes have been bolded).
Make no mistake, journalists have a large and personal stake in our country’s security. We are citizens of this Republic, and live and work in cities that have been tragically marked as terrorist targets. Reporters and photographers from both of our papers braved the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center to convey the horror to the world. We have correspondents today alongside troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others risk their lives in a quest to understand the terrorist threat; Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal was murdered on such a mission. We, and the people who work for us, are not neutral in the struggle against terrorism, we are citizens and supporters of the United States.
It’s a minor shift in tone, but a telling one. And the sad joke is that I can’t imagine Keller or Boquet making that shift in tone, which is why I’m so upset at this, and I imagine so many others are as well.
Look, let me put it another way.
I have a younger brother. As brothers do, we have said and done harsh things to each other; out of good intentions and bad, out of the full range of what brothers and families do to each other. Some of the things said and done would be unforgivable, if done by someone else.
Why the double standard?
Because I know my brother loves me, and he knows I love him. Our loyalty to each other has not ever been in question.
Similarly, if journalists did not see themselves as having no higher loyalty than to the story – remember, here’s Mike Wallace:
“No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!”
…their protests might not ring as hollow.
There’s a much larger issue here in terms of the assumption that the kind of unchecked legal freedom in our country can work without the soft restraints of social and political obligation.
#2 is particularly off-key. The idea that NYT editors are going to take security seriously because they fear for their personal safety is hardly a noble line of reasoning. Furthermore, I don’t believe a single word of it. Comparing themselves to Daniel Pearl is especially offensive.
In #3, Hugo Black’s statement is a perfect example of liberal oligarchic arrogance. We didn’t elect the media to decide what secrets are necessary for national security. Secondly, we don’t believe for an instant that media institutions overloeaded with sclerotic Democrats are going to leave politics out of their considerations, when they daily make appararent to us that they don’t.
As always, they disavow any responsibility for the effects of their reporting. They are only “informing” the public, and if any bad results occur it will obviously be the fault of the public or of the government – or maybe even of terrorists, but at any rate it’s not fault. They want us to believe that they are as morally neutral as the wind or the rain, or rather, that they perform a function that transcends moral responsibility.
“We make our best judgment.”
That does seem to be the problem.
Maybe we need to have a Constitutional Amendment making the positions of editors in chief of the Times’, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc. into elective offices.
Since they now feel that they are a branch of the federal government, with all the powers and priviliges of such an institution, it’s only fair that we be allowed to decide who will be in charge and accountable.
Sorry, AL, but I do not find them honorable. Honorable men do not expose active programs that are not only legal but actually working, and to the detriment of our common enemies in a time of war. Though in having to wend its way through a legalistic jungle it may not be deemed in the end treason, it is altogether so in common parlance.
Baquet and Keller’s current protest is as weak as their earlier models, typically superficial and laced with their “patriotic” garnishes. I also think you are wrong that the arguments are honorable at least as far the defense fits the action taken. If so, you can say that the argument for stealing bread to eat so as to survive, applies equally for those who rob banks to buy a car so as to survive.
I find it the height of hubris to quote Black re the Pentagon Papers to defend their action. The Pentagon Papers were published to ostensibly expose the misdeeds, explicit mind you, of the government. Where are the misdeeds here? None, explicitly or implicitly. They defend the exposure of the program on the grounds of potential abuse and concerns over legality. Abuse that they have no evidence of and legalitiies which can be, by our conventions, be decided by airing in the court of public opinion. On what subject in this society of free inquiry and dissent, is there or has there ever been an end to the question of legality?
But rather than just spout amorphously, and some might claim as irrelevantly as Baquet and Keller, some specifics are in order. Our government legally monitors domestic bank transactions in the amount, last I knew in the late 90’s, of $10,000 or more, though I think that amount has been reduced. Defense of the publication out of concerns over legality or privacy is specious.
To close, I’ll go back to the beginning. You say they are honorable men. Do honorable men oppose for the sake of opposing? These “honorable men” called for programs of financial tracking right after 9/11, any of which, if instituted and secret, would be fraught with “pos(ing) a serious threat to cvil liberties” and concerns over legality of the program. And if not secret — their balance for deciding it’s safety — then rather useless. I will accede to your opinion they are honorable only if you can show me they are idiots in the true sense of the word. For me, however, their education and position belie that proposition.
How about a reality check on the government’s ‘war on terror’ spy efforts? My personal criteria is, “Has it kept the elephants off my grass?” Since I haven’t seen any elephants on my grass since Bush was annointed and started this nonsense, I conclude, against my better judgement, that domestic spying actually has been 100% effective. Grudging kudos to the NeoCons.
I’ll make the obvious point about Sam’s argument: it’s absurd. Nothing is 100 percent effective.
But even so, no spy program is 100% effective. It may not even 100% efficient. Some things can slip through unnoticed, particularly under the dynamic of conditions changing. Elephants are elephants and they will always be elephants. They don’t think to change their behavior or appearance.
Terrorists do. That’s why the issue was this secret being published. They’ll change their names, their organization names and front companies. They’ll stop using the methods monitored and use others. But even so, they will make mistakes just as we do. At some time they will use a part of system that is being monitored, because of turnover in their organization, newbies, forgetfulness or wanting to take a chance.
Another point. These are passive programs in that they lie in wait for their use. This program will still be used to one extent or another. We may downgrade it and may miss something as a result, making it more ineffective, a trade off between our judgment on efficiency and effectiveness and the timing of our decision vis-a-vis the dynamic of when our enemy makes a mistake.
You silliness defends a NYT publication whereby it is much harder for our government to not only do their job but adds time and money in repairing the damage sustained and return to the former effectiveness of our efforts.
Lastly, this isn’t just about the elephants on your lawn, or attacks on our soil. Much money is needed to sustain the enemies’ efforts whether here at home or Canada, Britain, Spain, Philippine, Thailand, Iraq, Afghanistan and on and on. Our troops, diplomats, et al. are helping the efforts to vanquish our enemies in many countries and the program you so casually joke about monitored one of those lifeblood activities which sustain the efforts of our enemies in those countries.
Tell me that reducing the effectiveness of this program, no matter how small, satisfies the NYT’s need to publish legal programs rife only with potentialities of threats and concerns. Tell me Sam, how many dead is it worth?
[It’s frustrating to write a post and get it anti-spam’d for having n*s (replace * with e) in words no matter how much I try to work around it and still spell correctly. xx=ss]
[Fixed in this comment. Marshall Festus]
The SWIFT monitering has been known for some years. Remember all those press conferences where administration officials talked about tracking international funding of terrorism? I do. Remember in 2002 when European press reported that international banks were cooperating with U.S. intelligence with repsect to electronic money transfer? I do. The fact that this is even being made a political issue , much less a national security issue, is laughable.
I love this line:
_”Sensitive stories do not fall into our hands. They may begin with a tip…”_
So someone providing a tip is not the same as the stories falling into their hands?
I too agree that the press must be an effective tool in checking the power of the government. But what is the point of trumpeting the stories they held:
_But there are other examples. The New York Times has held articles that, if published, might have jeopardized efforts to protect vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear material, and articles about highly sensitive counterterrorism initiatives that are still in operation. In April, The Los Angeles Times withheld information about American espionage and surveillance activities in Afghanistan discovered on computer drives purchased by reporters in an Afghan bazaar._
Do they not think that terror groups will now seek this information knowing it exists? If I were them I’d be worried about my security now.
Dr. D
Nauseating, that you cannot make the distinction. The terrorists are going to lose because we would rather die than give up our freedom. That freedom means we get to call bullshit on our government and how they do things.
Since you don’t like it I suggest your emigrate to Russia and look into the the soul of Putin. Bush did and he liked the idea of not being accountanble to anyone.
Hey Sam, you recall that particular elephant in Manhattan a few years ago? Of course you dont, because like the NYT and LAT that might as well have been an earthquake. Total accident. Ask the victims in Madrid or London about elephants as well.
The SWIFT monitering has been known for some years.
Wrong. Details count, and mining SWIFT transaction data is qualitatively different than asking x number of banks to pretty please give us whatever transaction data they might be comfortable in sharing.
It’s the difference between looking for a needle in a haystack by hand as opposed to using a scrap iron magnet to suck out all the interesting bits.
I’m both aghast and amused by Administration critics who try the whole “there’s nothing to see here” routine.
We just let the terrorist networks back into the 21st century. Good on ya, T&T guys.
Halflotus, besides you, I have only seen Richard Clark suggest it wasn’t a security issue. Dozens of others, officials both in and outside of government, argue the efficacy of the program and that damage was done in its publication.
Even the NYT and LAT don’t deny it was a security issue. Those two news organizations assert, however, that publication was necessary because the “potential threat to privacy” were more important in their opinion than maintaining the secrecy of the program.
The times framed the program as secret _in their own article_. And if this wasnt news, _why was it front page news_?
America protects not only itself but its friends and allies from terrorists.
I would have like this program to continue being secret and effective so that South-East Asian terrorists could be caught before they kill any more Australians.
Those who published this information in effect made a foreign policy decision as unfavorable to America’s friends as it is convenient for the terrorists who are our mutual enemies.
I do not think that the reasons given are good enough.
If another Bali-style operation comes off, maybe in part because the Americans were hamstrung in monitoring the jihadis, then who will compensate the victims for this? Dean Baquet and Bill Keller?
I do not see anything honorable about this.
But David, if you had sent an electronic funds transfer to an orphanage in Thailand, Bush would know you had done it!
Can’t you see the problem with that?
#15 from Mark Poling: “But David, if you had sent an electronic funds transfer to an orphanage in Thailand, Bush would know you had done it!
Can’t you see the problem with that?”
(after laughing, a lot)
… He might tell the evil Neocons, who might tell the Zionists? And they would know to come to my house next time they needed blood for their infamous Pesach rituals?
Is this still a Likud thing, or is some other faction of the Elders in charge now that the Likud faw down go boom!? It’s so hard to keep up with these things.
If that’s not the down side … is it something innately evil about Texas? … Can I ask for a clue?
–
And, it asks: “How do we, as editors, reconcile the obligation to inform with the instinct to protect?”
So keeping silent is always giving into instinct, while grabbing the scoop is always rising to duty.
And they deliberate and deliberate till they reach the right decision, presumably not merely the gut, instinctive decision. (Gee, I wonder how that will turn out?)
So I guess all must be for the best. Assuming that:
* all these people do indeed have a strong gut instinct to protect America and America’s friends and allies. (Can one doubt it?)
* and there is ultimately nothing but this instinct to add to case by case considerations, on the side of silence.
* and it’s a duty to blow perfectly legal anti-terror operations.
Why if those assumptions are true, then what these newspapers have done is indeed honorable!
But if not, not.
The important thing here is that the newspapers make a profit from disclosing secrets, not from keeping them. They cannot be trusted, any more than any other multinational corporation — the incentives are all backwards. Three classic approaches appear to be:
1. Command and control regulation. We can start this with a soft touch. The newspaper statement indicates that they don’t have a standard. Pass a law requiring each newspaper to create and publicly disclose a standard for publishing national secrets. Whether there are penalties imposed for violating it or whether those are imposed later is debatable. Also, consider at a later date whether to impose the more stringent standards on those whose standards are too loose.
2. Civil liability. Tom Holsinger already has a proposal, but I would probably prefer a less stringent one. Make newspapers liable for damages/injuries caused by their disclosure of national secrets. Let the stockholders and insurance cariers come into the decisionmaking process. Newspapers should be in the same fear of accountability as the airline industry after 9/11.
3. State ownership. Go BBC. Not my option, but its there.
AL:
You want the editors to pronounce their patriotism to the US before you will acknowlege their arguments, or worse you discount them (even as you seem to agree) on the basis of this one perceived omission? That’s an interesting position to take, although I have a strong sense that even if they wrote precisely the paragraph you did, you’d find other reasons to doubt their sincerity.
Their arguments are strong and completely consistent with balancing reportage with national security secrets, and I have yet to see a strong and rational refutation of their points that doesn’t resort, as your’s does, to some false loyalty litmus test.
#17
You’re argument that profit motive is the prime force driving journalism is weak. If that were the case, they’d all look like Murdoch’s British tabloids and sound like Fox News. In addition, there’s PBS. Yes, they’re corporations, but unique in that they do not function solely to maximize shareholder value.
Furthermore, even if profit motive were the prime force, it is not clear that reportage would be driven down the idealogical path you are suggesting they travel to maximize this. The right wing propoganda dust-up that has arisen in the wake of the SWIFT disclosure could just as easily work against circulation numbers than for them. To suggest that the editors were thinking only about selling papers when considering whether to publish this is an extremely narrow minded and unenlightening view, in my opinion. It doesn’t explain anything, therefore its utility as a hypothesis is minimal if not worthless.
Finally, your listmaking seeks solutions to a non-existent public problem. The problem is for the Bush Administration, not the public interest or common good, which has been very well served by this and the NSA wiretapping reportage.
“For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men”
–Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2
#18 from Walter’s Ridge: “Yes, they’re corporations, but unique in that they do not function solely to maximize shareholder value.”
“unique”?
I don’t believe it.
Will you present evidence that this is true?
It seems to me that, increasingly, what we are seeing is that the overseers need to be overseen themselves. Ultimately, rather than increasing the freedom of the press, what the NY Times and its war on America will have accomplished is (1) proving that journalists have no right to secrecy and will go to jail when they print secrets, and (2) editors of newspapers have no right to any sort of “freedom” whatsoever and will be overseen by some sort of elected commission.
If our military have to report what they’re doing to elected members of Congress, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that the editors of the NY Times and the LA Times shouldn’t also have to report on what THEY are doing to some sort of elected board of representatives.
Obviously the system whereby capitalism and the worth of stocks rein in an over-abundance of enthusiasm is taking way too long to work as both newspapers inexorably lose their worth. There needed to be a stockholders revolt for both organizations a year or two ago when it became clear that the LA Times was doing its damndest to overturn the California governor’s election, and the NY Times is trying even harder to overturn a Presidential election and now a sitting President.
Why aren’t the feet of these two editors being held to the fire, and what they are doing put up to a majority vote?
#21 from NahnCee. Good point…but since neither the military nor the Executive Branch has to report much of what they’re doing to elected members of Congress, I don’t see how you think that private organizations like the NY and LA Times should be made to do so. Unless you’re advocating a dismantling of our free enterprise system and a move toward a more totalitarian one, that is.
“…neither the military nor the Executive Branch has to report much of what they’re doing to elected members of Congress…”
I’d like somebody to explain to me why that is. After all, doesn’t Congress control the purse-string? If they don’t have to report, it is because Congress has decided that reporting is unecessary. Congress can and will destroy programs, agencies, and programs that do not cooperate. Whether or not they use that power is another story entirely. As for me, I’m getting a little tired of Congressmen from both parties appearing on TV and saying something to the effect of “Please stop me from being so stupid!”
As far as the NYT and WSJ, I think too much is made about these particular corporations. Freedom of the press means freedom for bloggers too. So whatever rules you might want to impose should work for everybody.
In fact, this is the crux of the problem. In my opinion, organizations like the NYT do not feel that they are working on a par with Joe Blogger. Instead, they seem to feel that they are above the law. That jounralism is some sort of sacred caste or calling.
Hogwash.
“I’d like somebody to explain to me why that is. After all, doesn’t Congress control the purse-string? If they don’t have to report”
Just as the democrats on the intelligence committees with subpoena power feel it is the adminstrations job to spoon feed them every drip of information- so too Congress and specifically the democrats in congress have made it clear that they reserve the right not to take a position on any matter that may later cost them votes- and also that it unfair to hold them accountable for this.
#24 “…democrats on the intelligence committees with subpoena power feel it is the administrations job to spoon feed them…”.
The committee (controlled by Republicans) have subpoena power, not individual members. And it’s the Constitution which establishes a checks-and-balances system to try to prevent abuse by any branch of government which, of course, also extends to the press’s responsibility not to kow-tow to the Administration. This administration is unlikely to spoon-feed anything to Congress, even if it’s mandated by Constitutional authority.
(#25) “The committee (controlled by Republicans) have subpoena power, not individual members.”
Yes. But this is because the Congress has set committee powers up the way they have. They are free to set up subpeona power any way they want. They could delegate to individual members if they so desired, but that’s an awful idea.
Congress has the power to configure their oversight powers any way they want, within the constitution, of course. This spiel of “I’m such an idiot, everybody’s always fooling me” is just as bad as the old “please stop me from spending more money than I should” or any of the other horse manure they have been shoveling at us.
I mean, if this is the first time you’ve heard any of this, it all sounds plausible — the poor congressman, nobody ever cooperates with him. But look into it. Really look into it. They’ve set this thing up for the exact purpose of coming out and complaining like this. They just want votes. They don’t care about balancing the budget, overseeing the executive, or reaching compromise on policy issues. They want to look good no matter what happens. War going well? They voted for it. War going badly? Nobody discloses like they should. People should have listened to them more.
This is why NahnCee’s idea is unworkable. One of many reasons why.
Mr. Markham – if it’s not working, change it. Our system is not working if the NY Times and the LA Times can publish whatever the hell they want to, thereby imperiling me and mine, and I have no say in it, either as a taxpayer or a stockholder.
If my suggestion to change it won’t work, then what would YOUR suggestion be?
Certification by the executive after publication that such publication damaged national security and endangered lives.
For certified events, follow-up civil prosecution (without a limit to the amount that can be awarded)
This means that publishers will have to truly “bet the farm” when they act like the NYT did. I think this is appropriate.
Not my idea, but others’. This is the best I’ve heard so far. I’m not completely happy with this one either. I’d be in favor of re-working the entire classification system. Make “classified” really mean something. Truly secret information needs to reamin secret, period. Under penalty of imprisonment. The only exception I would grant would be to members of the leglislative branch who _publicly_ expose items they feel should not be classified.
What would your response be, Mr. Markham, if it turns out that the NY Times is being funded by Saudi Arabia, and that information should come to light via the financial records program the spies are using and the Times is trying so hard to get deep-six’d?
The problem with your solution is that it’s not proactive — it depends on taking the Times to task AFTER the next 9/11. Thus it has much in common with *all* of the ideas of the Liberal Left, such as they are. I would prefer to put something in place to prevent another such occurence, thank you very much.
NahnCee.
This is a bit off-topic but you have asked me two direct questions, and you deserve an answer. Apologies to the rest of the folk for the small digression.
There are two problems with prior restraint that I can see right away. The first is that the current state of war we are in has no state enemy or declaration of war from Congress. Ergo, there will be no surrender or cessation of hostilities. Whatever limitations you want to impose on the press are basically peacetime constraints. It’s difficult to make the case “but we’re at war” (which I agree with, btw) when it’s not so simple or clearcut.
The second problem is that the press is supposed to act as a pressure valvle on the system. Bad politicians, bad policies, and bad laws deserve a full pulblic outing. This includes the overuse of the document classification system. The current system is a mess, and we have made it that way. To cite one example, the Air Force had to be bullied to no end to release information on the Roswell incident. That occurred when? Sixty years ago? They were still keeping secret the nature of spy balloons used in the early part of the cold war. The government have drowned themselves in classified documents. When most everything is classified, nothing is classified.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say heinous, vile, and despicable things that offend everyone. If it doesn’t mean that, it has no meaning. This is because in order for a society to change the changing force must say things that are considered out of the norm. Sometimes far out of the norm. Likewise, freedom of the press has to mean the freedom to print repulsive, vile, etc material or it has no meaning. The fact that I am deeply offended by the NYT is non-material. Any solution must also work in the opposite case: the case where I am the reporter disclosing a program that is vital to the public interest but which the government does not want disclosed.
I suggest that “potential loss of life” is a higher ethical standard and should be acknowledged by statute. Even then, it’s only “potential”. If we allow prior constraint, then every article that publishes information, including that old spy balloon story, could be construed to risk lives. Publishing something carries a risk always, there has to be: a) an acknolwedgement of risk, b) a certification of damagaes, and c) a price to pay. Each of these steps has a procedure, oversight, and an appeals process.
I’m not liberal by any means (except in the classic sense of the word), I’m a Libertarian, but I’m also not going to let a lynch mob throw out the constitution. The system is self-correcting. The fact that we’re having this discussion is proof of that. If you monkey around with the self-correcting nature of the system, you take risks I am not comfortable taking. Let’s let the NYT worry about going out of biz and then let’s give lie detectors until we find the leakers and throw them in jail. We can do a lot of things. Constraining political free speech should be the very last item on the list.
I’m mad as heck at what the NYT and WSJ did. People are going to die, and they will be responsible. But we already live in a world where people and corporations make unwittingly wrong decisions where people end up dying — that’s what we have civil litigation for. If the NYT purposely tried to hurt people, that’s criminal. But if they’re just idiots, treat them like you would other companies that make bone-headed decisions that kill people. You don’t have every little decision analyzed by politicians, you empower people to make mistakes and then hold them accountable for those that are really bad.
A problem that’s come up with the Times’ defenses of crippling the Swift surveillance program is that they present two ideas, each of which might be plausible separately, but which are logically incompatible with one another.
“Patterico”:http://patterico.com/2006/07/02/4815/eric-lichtblau-meet-your-own-story-and-headline/ and “Postwatch”:http://www.postwatchblog.com/2006/07/establisthing_t.html (via Instapundit) note NYT reporter Eric Lichtblau’s assertion that the program was not secret… and contrast it with his statements that it was, er, secret.
Keller and Baquet have to work with a subtler but probably more important case of cognitive dissonance. They are patriotic Americans and act out of those heartfelt convictions… except that they aren’t, and don’t. (Not in any sense that is recognizable to most of their intended audience, anyway).
This problem is what A.L. alludes to in presenting his “wished for” paragraph in the body of the post, and contrasting it with the morality that drove the famous Mike Wallace episode.
It’s not Keller and Baquet, it is Western Journalism that’s abandoned the concepts of patriotism, nationalism, and national identity. 2006 isn’t 1944, and Ernie Pyle and Eric Lichtblau stand on opposite sides of a divide that can’t be bridged.
If the journalist’s goal is to ensure that all sides of a story be fairly represented and dispassionately reported–and that is the code that they think they are aspiring to–how is a priori committment to one of those sides possible? In a word, it isn’t.
So A.L.’s preferred patriotic passage will never happen, because it can’t happen. Unless, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, the Kellers and Baquets write fine-sounding filler material to reassure their not-real-bright readers that There’s Nothing To See Here, ‘cuz us Editors take our Responsibilities To The Nation Real Seriously.
Take a quick trip back to March 2006, when the details of reporter “Michael Ware’s embeds with Iraqi jihadis”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008364.php came to light. When Gettin’ The Story came up against Harming Our Side, it turned out that there was no Our in the Coalition’s side of things. Also recall how the American press recoiled from the circumstantial evidence that AP stringer Bilal Hussein was “complicit in the jihadis’ murder of Iraqi election officials on Haifa Street.”:http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/04/corrupting-our-sight-2.html …so much so that his photo was awarded a Pulitzer.
The same dynamic is at work in the present instance. Keller, Baquet, and Lichtblau could spare us the crocodile anguish that they emote, preening about their commitment to our society’s ideals even as they position themselves outside and above them.
Daniel Markham
OT, sorry I’ll continue.
While I’m in general agreement with you, this statement is a bit of exaggeration:
_”This includes the overuse of the document classification system. The current system is a mess,”_
The classification/declassification system was overhauled quite extensively in the ’90’s. Even to the extent that expiration dates are set on much of the classified material.
Everyone has their pet classified info horror stories and most don’t put them in context. I actually have my own pet datum and that is that the most requested information under FOIA concerns Area 51. Kinda sad when you think about it.
Actually I believe one of the myths concerning classified information is that we classify too much of it. Whereas the reality is that even if there may be a greater quanitity of classified data now than fifty years ago, it constitutes a smaller percent of government data than it used to.
There are strict rules concerning what becomes classified but there still is, of course, an institutional bias towards classification for the simple fact that if one makes the wrong decision about whether one should stamp a piece of information classified, it is irreversible.
And that’s something we have to live with simply because government is a gigantic bureaucracy.
Classification for a** covering is extremely rare and, in fact, almost non-existent.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the piles of New York Times with classified stamped on several articles, wasting away in a closet somewhere. There’s a reasonable explanation for that too. The Times prints lots of classified info–and quite frequently. Little facts here and there that most people wouldn’t pay much heed to (except those who are looking). This all has to be checked out but there simply isn’t the time nor personnel available to keep up with it all. The piles are simply backlog.
Anyway, I think much of the furor over classification has more to do with politics than reality. After all, Bush is considered the most.secretive.president.ever. But I, personally, would expect there to be more classified material during times of armed conflict and threats to citizens than during peacetime. I imagine you would too.
Syl.
You are probably much more informed on this than I am.
I do know that the majority of the American public think the secrecy laws are used too much. Perhaps this is just a perception problem. In democracices, however, perception is a very big deal.
Just gooolging around, I found this. I direct your attention to page 5, entitled “Quantity of Information Moving in and out of the Classification System”
I don’t want to argue sourcing. I’m new to the party. Like most folks, I believe the government keeps way too much secret. Some of this is due to the classification system, some to ineptitutde, some to the nature of large organizations, some to CYA. I’m open to hear evidence about this on either side. Perhaps A.L. will open up a new post on this topic sometime soon.
A couple of quick thoughts:
#18, Walter’s Ridge: “You’re argument that profit motive is the prime force driving journalism is weak. If that were the case, they’d all look like Murdoch’s British tabloids and sound like Fox News. In addition, there’s PBS. Yes, they’re corporations, but unique in that they do not function solely to maximize shareholder value.”
The amazing thing about corporations is that each individual one is free to behave pretty much as it pleases under the law. That means there are good corporations and bad corporations. There are smart ones and dumb ones. And other ways to measure performance, of course. (You are correct that the one metric most stockholders care most about is stock value, but it certainly isn’t the only factor; there are any number of funds dedicated to “good citizen” stocks.)
Which brings me to my next point, which is that the system is currently working to effectively check missused journalistic power. This latest episode of gotcha reporting is backfiring on the two Times’, at least. (Don’t know how the WSJ’s readership is reacting.) This is going to hurt subscription rates, which will hurt advertising, which will hurt profitability, which was already hurting.
At some point, even a Publisher as thick as the Moose Man is going to think about maybe shifting gears a bit, family-business-disguised-as-public-corporation or not.
Efficient it ain’t, but over the long term this is how the market works. And for my money, letting the market sort it out is safer than asking for any kind of direct governmental intervention. (NahnCee, I feel your pain, but just because the Police State Chicken Littles are annoyingly paranoid, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.)
W.R. _You’re argument that profit motive is the prime force driving journalism is weak._
I never said that profit was the prime force, but that it provided incentives that cuts against defering to their judgment on matters of national security. For example, you can believe, as I do, that Pete Rose would never deliberately throw a game to make a buck, but a manager must make a number of judgment calls that could be influenced at some level.
Even in important Constitutional areas as voting, the influence of money is legislated.
Classification for a** covering is extremely rare and, in fact, almost non-existent.
How would you know?
How would anybody know?
If there was a system in place designed to stop CYA classifying (which I would not expect to get particularly highest priority, it would tend to be understaffed and staffed by people who aren’t wanted for something more important), and if I was in a position to do CYA classifying, I’d try to do it in a way that gave at least a superficial argument that it was legitimate. That’s a little extra trouble but it shouldn’t be very hard to do.
If you were on the team that checks classified work for CYA I could see you claiming that your team is not understaffed and it’s superbly competent and you check everything and find no CYA, therefore CYA is almost nonexistent. And I would laugh.
But unless that’s your job, how would you know?
_”But unless that’s your job, how would you know?”_
Well, I would know because someone part of whose job it was to determine this told me.
I have anonymous sources, just like the New York Times 🙂
In general ‘secrecy’ is conflated with classification yet ‘secrecy’ involves much more. Like, well, statute.
Classification is only one factor when responding to FOIA requests. There are several statutes taken into consideration before a piece of info is released (or redacted). A significant one being the Privacy Act.
Daniel…thanks for the link to the Openthegovernment report.
They’re much like the ACLU in that they ignore existing statute, caselaw, and context while crying out for a utopian vision of openness. That’s not to say they don’t serve a good purpose by making people think. But their data shouldn’t be taken merely at face value. The irony is that people who are normally cynical tend to swallow them whole.
The first example cited was the miniscule number of FISA requests that are rejected. Missing from their evaluation is the pages and pages of data and signoffs required before a FISA request ever reaches the court. What would be weeded out of the system gets mowed down long before a FISA judge even know it exists.
The FISA system was made cumbersome for a reason (note the time period in which it was enacted) which many applaud but others find detrimental in our current circumstances.
J Thomas
I’d just like to add further that there is no ‘system’ in place to find CYA classification. No team to go around hunting for it.
That would be impossible because no person, or team, would have the slightest idea whether a piece of information was ‘properly’ classified or not without specific knowledge of that information’s own context.
Classified info is compartmentalized. If one gets ‘a security clearance’ it doesn’t mean suddenly someone has knowledge of everything.
That said, within each department or whatever granularity applies, procedures for checks and balances are in place. It would pretty much take a conspiracy for a CYA classification to occur.
Syl.
Like I said, you probably know a lot more about this than I do.
I will say, however, that it is appropriate to assume that a particular government operation is not running as optimally as possible. Law of averages, as it were. While I have deep respect for everybody who serves our country, I also know from personal experience both the low morale and lack of quality checks that are rampant throughout our system. In addition, there are problems faced by all large organizations, no matter what the nature of their mission statement.
Whenever you do something in an organization, there should be a qualitative measure of whether you are doing it correctly or not. J Thomas brings up a good point: with compartmentalized information, the system is basically designed to prevent quality checks. As Martha Stewart might say, that’s not a good thing.
_”with compartmentalized information, the system is basically designed to prevent quality checks. As Martha Stewart might say, that’s not a good thing.”_
Very true. But not compartmentalizing classified info is, quite frankly, out of the question.
A drastic solution in general, of course, would be to decrease the size of government. But it’s gone beyond the point where we can actually do that to any significant extent.
So we’re left with the procedures that are in place and, tada, whistleblowers!
This stuff tends to be cyclical or at least driven by major events. Another round of overhauling the classification system will occur but I doubt it will be soon. The ’90’s were fresh off the end of the cold war. Peace in our time and that end of history stuff.
It’s a sensitive issue now but people are divided over what to do, if anything.
However, through all this, we must keep in mind that though classification issues are a part of the workings of government, they are not the whole of government efficiencies which can and should be dealt with on an ongoing basis.
The vast majority of what the government does has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping classified secrets.