Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Times’ Editors Repeat Kossack’s “Wake Up Call” Re: U.S. Gov’t Targeting Journalists (232 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Now that their masters have turned on them (14+ / 0-)

    all of a sudden the Constitution matters. Well maybe this is a turning point. We can only hope that the media starts doing its job.

    •  It's bought and paid for, that just isn't going (4+ / 0-)

      to happen.  That's why I think this is all pretty strange.  You can almost imagine the public thinking, "oh the poor MSM, the government is preventing them from telling us the truth."  

      "I'm an antiwar propagandist as accused by democrats. Not even republicans have called me that."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:51:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you can always trust self-preservation (17+ / 0-)

        to get people riled up about injustices. As long as it's their own ass on the line.

        As this administration expanded its use of these surveillance powers without pushback, it became more and more arrogant and brazen, sure that no one would notice, or care if they did.

        So eventually they were bound to step on someone's toes, and wouldn't be able to smooth it over. The WH response to this revelation has been the opposite of slick, they've stumbled and hemmed and hawed their way through it. They really weren't prepared for the shitstorm that would ensue once the media got wind of it.

        Rule #1: don't piss off the media! Since they can reach a mass audience, if you antagonize them, they will broadcast their displeasure to that audience, and then you'll be screwed.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:13:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If they change their tune about Julian Assange (9+ / 0-)

        And Bradley Manning, we'll know something's afoot.

        Not.  Holding.  My.  Breath.

        A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

        by MrJayTee on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:21:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who, NYT? I thought NYT supported Assange (0+ / 0-)

          (I don't know about Manning), since Assange chose them as one of his selected conduits to release Manning's material. Have they come out against Assange?

          •  No. (6+ / 0-)

            Along with several other top tier outlets like the Guardian and El Pais, the Times published some news articles based on material disclosed by Wikileaks.  

            Then Bill Keller, editor of the Times (probably the single most powerful job in US journalism) decided to get personal.  Here is Keller's piece making sure we know how little he thinks of Assange.  Otherwise, the Times has neither been supportive nor neutral.

            It's long and at times tedious, and IMO, it says far more about Keller than it does about Assange.  YMMV.

            A slower bleed-out is not a sustainable value.

            by MrJayTee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:43:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I read the article. (0+ / 0-)

              What, exactly, in it do you object to?  Or do you think that Assange is a flawless saint and that anything even mildly negative about him (mixed in with positives) simply can't be true and is a viscious smear by people who hate freedom?  No matter how many people who worked with Assange, even Wikileaks' former #2, report the same behavior from him?  No, it simply can't be, because... because... well, just because!

              Heck, that article's greatest distortion is in Assange's favor - they write, "Two Swedish women filed police complaints claiming that Assange insisted on having sex without a condom; Sweden’s strict laws on nonconsensual sex categorize such behavior as rape", when Sweden has some of the most lax laws on sexual Assault in the developed world, and what he's actually charged with is waiting until a girl fell asleep in order to F* her in a way she had explicitly and repeately refused (which the British court system, bottom to top, all stated would be rape in the UK as well) - the crime being sex with a sleeping girl, with the explicit refusal of consent being an aggravating factor.  A sleeping person cannot consent, period. The next most serious charge is "unlawful sexual coersion" for pinning a girl down and trying to pry her legs open to force unwanted sexual activity.  These are damed serious charges, not simply "sex without a condom".

              And really, the article makes some great points about government secrecy and the pursuit of it.  For example, are you not in agreement with this?

              The government surely cheapens secrecy by deploying it so promiscuously. According to the Pentagon, about 500,000 people have clearance to use the database from which the secret cables were pilfered. Weighing in on the WikiLeaks controversy in The Guardian, Max Frankel remarked that secrets shared with such a legion of “cleared” officials, including low-level army clerks, “are not secret.” Governments, he wrote, “must decide that the random rubber-stamping of millions of papers and computer files each year does not a security system make.”
              Is it not a good point that if half a million people - more than the population of Orlando and Madison combined, one in every 600 people in the US, have access to them, then they're not really that "secret"?

              Or perhaps you're not in agreement with this?

              But while I do not regard Assange as a partner, and I would hesitate to describe what WikiLeaks does as journalism, it is chilling to contemplate the possible government prosecution of WikiLeaks for making secrets public, let alone the passage of new laws to punish the dissemination of classified information, as some have advocated. Taking legal recourse against a government official who violates his trust by divulging secrets he is sworn to protect is one thing. But criminalizing the publication of such secrets by someone who has no official obligation seems to me to run up against the First Amendment and the best traditions of this country.
              Really, what's your beef with this article?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site